Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mark Miller (talk | contribs) at 01:40, 26 October 2013 (→Lead revisited). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:40, 26 October 2013 by Mark Miller (talk | contribs) (→Lead revisited)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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.

Article policies

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: 3 months

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 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

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.

Human rights Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights 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.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-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.

Law High‑importance

	Law portal 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.

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

	United States portal 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.

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.

Article policies

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: 3 months

Consensus?

I see that GreekParadise removed the POV tag from the article. Does this mean we have a consensus that the article is not biased? This wouldn't mean that any of us think the article is perfect. It would be a big step for the dispute about neutrality to be resolved. SMP0328. (talk) 00:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I did not remove the POV tag at the top of the article. It was forcibly removed against my will. On several occasions. I tried in good faith to edit a small portion at the bottom and removed the POV tag while I made one last attempt to act in good faith. But as usual, my own reliable sources were unceremoniously reverted without any reason given (because editors here continue to sadly believe their personal opinion trumps the findings of the Supreme Court and other reliable sources).

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

I believe we had a consensus since the end of March 2013. This latest rehash presented nothing new. Cheers.Grahamboat (talk) 03:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Bullshit and you know it. It's not a consensus when you stifle debate and forcibly prevent factual material from being presented.GreekParadise (talk) 01:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Propose then this talk page be archived, we turn the page on this latest and greatest 2nd amendment kerfuffle, and set up with a new talk page. 10stone5 (talk) 20:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I've changed auto-archiving to 14 days (from 45). That gives enough time to confirm that we have consensus and it prevents the need to unarchive if it turns out we don't have consensus. SMP0328. (talk) 20:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I won't repeat the above. North8000 (talk) 00:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neutrality Dispute

For reasons I state above and elsewhere on this talk page, I suggest that any reader that wants to be well-informed about the legal history of the Second Amendment avoid the nonsense provided here. The sources here are misused. Editors cite their personal opinion and claim it is sourced when it is not. And reliable sources have been deleted. All to claim that the Second Amendment has never changed when it fact it has. For a good short article on actual history of the Second Amendment, read this: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/12/jeffrey-toobin-second-amendment.html GreekParadise (talk) 01:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

We have continuously tried to work with you. Yet you seem to believe that consensus means we unconditionally surrender to your belief that the article should be about how Heller and McDonald were wrongly decided. That won't happen. The fact that the article doesn't perfectly reflect your opinion does not mean the article is biased. Misplaced Pages functions on consensus. It looked like we had consensus. We found a way for you to add your desired reference to preHeller Court of Appeals decisions. So why do you return to ranting about the article being biased and attacking fellow editors? SMP0328. (talk) 02:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LONG DISCUSSION PRE-RATIFICATION

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

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

SO-CALLED "SCHOLARLY COMMENTARY"

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

SUPREME COURT CASES

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

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

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

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

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

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

AFTER HELLER --

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TFD It is perhaps enlightening to look at the dissent of Heller, where the dissenters did not argue a true collective right, but all went with the "limited individual rights" model. (In two separate dissents, in which all 4 dissenting judges signed) "The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right." and "“I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes: (1) The Amendment protects an ‘individual’ right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred.". In essence, the court unanimously ruled that it is an individual right, but differed on the scope of that right. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Request for Comment - Include Prior Law?

As there is universal agreement that DR is a better solution (including Greek Paradise creating a DR on this topic) I am speedily closing this RFC, so that the DR can proceed. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dispute resolution

As already noted, the discussion above has been submitted to the Dispute Resolution process. Interested editors will want to see that, so here's a link:

Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

— Mudwater 19:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

thanks for the link here. ∴ Naapple TALK|CON 02:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

resolution

Per administrator TransporterMan:

I believe we have reached a de facto consensus and should close the dr. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Added the disputed template to the top of the article

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

Lead

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

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

To tell the truth, I was quite annoyed to see that the article was delisted WP:GA. I wonder if it would be a good idea to gain consensus on reverting back to the version that was listed as a GA again.Wzrd1 (talk) 18:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Your belief that the Introduction violates MOS should be brought here before you make any changes to the Introduction. This is a disputed article, so consensus should be reached regarding any changes that are not minor. You basically are trying to rewrite the Introduction, so your edits are not minor. SMP0328. (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

It does violate the MOS, if for no other reason, the listing of selected case law in the lede. That is something that belongs in the body of the article. Still, perhaps changes could be sandboxed and consensus on the lede achieved and implemented then?Wzrd1 (talk) 19:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. There should be a consensus for any substantive changes to the Introduction. SMP0328. (talk) 20:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Actually "the lede should be to introduce the general subject" is not correct. (although the first sentence typically does that) The lead is supposed to summarize the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's my thoughts:

1 choice (best) Same as now except remove Miller
2 As it is now
3 Remove all cases from the lead. Not a good idea, but I could live with it.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Article protected

This article has been protected from editing for three days to try to generate talk page discussion of the disputed content. Please follow the WP:BRD guideline. You may also wish to consider dispute resolution (WP:DR). Mark Arsten (talk) 20:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, this is usually a prudent move on this and similar articles. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 04:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

This is a great start, why are we not using this?

User GreekParadise gets the credit for this...

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

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

It is a workable starting point, but in particular I think that the phrase "By the Twentieth Century, the Federal Courts had virtually summarily concluded that the Second Amendment was limited to a collective right to service in a well regulated militia and found the Government could limit any weapons not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." contains WP:OR and misrepresentation of Miller. The ruling does not say "collective right" or "right to service in a militia" but in fact says "... some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument" which is open to interpretation. - However I think a weaker version of that statement along the lines of "Lower interpreted Miller to protect a collective right" or some such is probably neutral and sourcable - but we should also bring to bear the many sources that describe miller as ambiguous. We should also mention that SCOTUS twice said (Printz, Heller) that Miller was not an examination of the right, or creation of a general rule etc (obviously top of my head wording here, and not something I think should actually be used) Gaijin42 (talk) 20:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

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

As I discussed above, strictly speaking a collective right is a right given to a group, in this case the individual states, but that has rarely been argued and was not used in the dissenting opinion in DC v Heller. The CRS article defines it as a right given to each state. Also I think the lead should be shorter, and just capture the key points. TFD (talk) 23:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Any condensed Introduction should include SCOTUS decisions, because those decisions provide the official meaning of the amendment. Also, we need to avoid synthesis. For example, the Introduction should not include a claim that the U.S. Courts of Appeals were interpreting the Second Amendment in a certain way pre-Heller. SMP0328. (talk) 23:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

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

OK, fair enough, so how about...

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

Regarding your suggested lead changes

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

“Federal Courts had established that the Second Amendment was limited to a collective right to service in a well regulated militia” also not true and misleading – a synthesis of Miller. None of the cases dealt with Individual or collective rights – they were all about restrictions on rights. For example:

KONIGSBERG v. STATE BAR, 366 U.S. 36 (1961) – plaintiff refused to answer questions about Communist affiliations
Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964), civil rights case involving refusal to admit Blacks
Adams v. Williams (1972) - limited protective search for concealed weapons
Lewis v. United States (1980) – wrongful conviction does not remove someone from GCA68 list
Printz v. United States (1997) - congressional action compelling state officers to execute federal law - Act’s interim provisions to be unconstitutional

In summery I think we need a better starting point. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 19:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

another try

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

Gaijin42 (talk) 20:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

These are seemingly OK?

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

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

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

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

Combined draft

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

This page in a nutshell: 1P, what it is and where its from. 2P, why its special, nothing happened for a long time, then it got 'popular'. 3P, 19th & 20th eras some significant stuff happened. 4P, recently more significant stuff happened that fundamentally changed things.

Need to be converted to inline cites

1. Commencement Address at Yale University, Pub. Papers 470, 471 (June 11, 1962).

1a.

2. See Douglas O. Linder, Trends in Constitution-Based Litigation in the Federal Courts, 63 U. MO. AT KAN. CITY L. REV. 41, 69 (1994) (stating that third amendment cases were least litigated). Compare U.S. CONST. amend. II with U.S. CONST. amend. III.

~~3. Compare U.S. CONST. amend. I with U.S. CONST. amend. II (totaling pages in bound volumes and 1996 Supplementary Pamphlets).~~

4. See United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1976); United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939); Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886). Gun control supporters like to call attention to Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55, 65 n.8 (1980) (noting that Second Amendment does not guarantee right to either keep or bear firearms if there is no relationship to militia), while gun control opponents often cite United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 265 (1990) (suggesting that term "the people" as used in First, Second, and Fourth Amendments may all refer to "persons who are part of a national community"). However, neither of these cases presented a Second Amendment issue, and the court's brief and passing comments about the Second Amendment in both of these cases are clearly dicta.

5. See Miller, 307 U.S. 174.

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

We do not know if the right to bear arms existed under common law, Blackstone was referring to the right that the 2A protects or if the 1689 act influenced the 2A. I also think that we should use secondary sources explaining what the amendment means, rather than relying on SCOTUS rulings. TFD (talk) 18:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Then what wording do you suggest, the rest of the WP Amendment articles cite sources and influences for their creation? I was following suit. And I'm always fine with additional sources. We likely have ample to select from already... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I have issue with the "federal courts established" part. Heller (and printz) were very clear and explicit that Heller was not overturning prior precedent. Therefore, Miller certainly did not establish anything. To what degree do lower courts have the ability to establish anything? (Particularly when there were 2 circuits that disagreed). Did (most) lower courts rule under that interpretation? Yes. Did they establish anything? No. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I "hemmed and hawed" over using the word 'established' as well. I'm open to suggestions as well as specificity. As far as that paragraph is concerned, I have some idea of what GP was going for but I think additional detail and references would be helpful. It was the standard back then that if a gun was more "military-like" (versus intentionally concealable), then it was allowed, hence the laundry list of firearms (i.e. gangster weapons) that the 1934 NFA made illegal. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Now I think we have a good starting point. In light of past disputes over lede changes, I agree we need more tweaks to reach a consensus before releasing. Nice work Scalhotrod. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 17:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks Graham, I hope that we can get a few more of the more active editors to comment, but I too am happy with the direction we have taken. Time permitting, I will work on the citation cleanup and the coding. After we load the new Lead, I would very much like to see about returning this article to its previous "Good" status. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

This is quite good so far, however we must include:

some mention of the academic research in the late 20th century.
Of interest in the 19th century: State supreme court decisions, commentary, the debates over adoption of the 14th amendment, and two SCOTUS decisions
That "Heller" is the first in depth look at the 2nd amendment by SCOTUS

I'm glad such progress has been made lets remember to be in the lede all (or most) sources should agree. J8079s (talk) 22:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest well established limitations on what classes of firearm one may possess, in short, a brief blurb and wikilink to the National Firearms Act of 1934. This is to correct any misapprehension that firearms covered under the NFA are unlawful, but that restrictions are in place to insure that the most potentially dangerous of our firearms are possessed by those of known mental, moral and community good status. It should be not too difficult to make such an addition in two sentences or so, with wikilinks to send those interested to the detailed article.

That said, the rest of the proposed prose is good. It gives the general outline and lets references and wikilinks "do the heavy lifting" for those who desire further detail. I'll help if I can, but time is precious of late since my father became ill again.Wzrd1 (talk) 03:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

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

2nd draft with proper coding

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

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

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

Better? And yes, thats the proper use of a semicolon. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 02:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The most glaring omission is the lack of any mention of the "standard view" which is reported by all sources wether its called "Liberal Case" "academic inquiry" it's mentioned in all sources. J8079s (talk) 03:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

What wording are you suggesting? There has been a fundamental change in the application of this Amendment, the article itself goes into great detail, but why should it be in the Lead?

Better yet, just give me a source that refers to the "collective right" era or cases and I'll figure out how to add a phrase in the third paragraph. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 04:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I suggest replacing this sentence While in recent years it has been the source of controversy and renewed judicial interest,with While in recent years it has been the subject of Academic inquiry and judicial interest more to follow but one thing at a time J8079s (talk) 14:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah ha! Elegant, I like it! As I did that last edit, I started to dislike using the word "controversy". Great suggestion, thank you.

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

reflist

reflist
^ Pollock, Earl (2008). The Supreme Court and American Democracy: Case Studies on Judicial Review and Public Policy. Greenwood. p. 423. ISBN 978-0-313-36525-6. ^ "held that the second amendment protects an individual's right to bear arms,"Scaros, Constantinos E. (2010). Understanding the Constitution. Jones & Bartlett Publishers. p. 484. ISBN 978-0-7637-5811-0. "The Constitution of the United States, Analysis and Interpretation, 2008 Supplement (Senate document 110-17)" (PDF). p. 83. ^ Liptak, Adam (June 28, 2010). "Justices Extend Firearm Rights in 5-to-4 Ruling". The New York Times. Retrieved December 17, 2012. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178 "The Constitution of the United States, Analysis and Interpretation, 2008 Supplement (Senate document 110-17)" (PDF). p. 83. "The Constitution of the United States, Analysis and Interpretation, 2008 Supplement (Senate document 110-17)" (PDF). p. 83. editor, Gregg Lee Carter,. Guns in American society : an encyclopedia of history, politics, culture, and the law (2nd ed. ed.). Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO. p. Introduction. ISBN 978-0-313-38670-1. `{{cite book}}`: `\|edition=` has extra text (help); `\|last=` has generic name (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) "The Constitution of the United States, Analysis and Interpretation, 2008 Supplement (Senate document 110-17)" (PDF). p. 83. editor, Gregg Lee Carter,. Guns in American society : an encyclopedia of history, politics, culture, and the law (2nd ed. ed.). Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO. p. Introduction. ISBN 978-0-313-38670-1. `{{cite book}}`: `\|edition=` has extra text (help); `\|last=` has generic name (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) "The Constitution of the United States, Analysis and Interpretation, 2008 Supplement (Senate document 110-17)" (PDF). p. 83. editor, Gregg Lee Carter,. Guns in American society : an encyclopedia of history, politics, culture, and the law (2nd ed. ed.). Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO. p. Introduction. ISBN 978-0-313-38670-1. `{{cite book}}`: `\|edition=` has extra text (help); `\|last=` has generic name (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) "Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England". Avalon.law.yale.edu. Retrieved 2013-08-01. Bogus, Carl T. "THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT". University of California at Davis Law Review 31 (1998): 309. Retrieved 1 August 2013. Bogus, Carl T. "THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT". University of California at Davis Law Review 31 (1998): 309. Retrieved 1 August 2013. ^ CRS Report for Congress District of Columbia v.Heller: The Supreme Court and the Second Amendment April 11, 2008 Congressional Research Service T.J. Halsted,Legislative Attorney,American Law Division. Order Code RL34446 http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34446_20080411.pdf. editor, Gregg Lee Carter,. Guns in American society : an encyclopedia of history, politics, culture, and the law (2nd ed. ed.). Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO. p. Introduction. ISBN 978-0-313-38670-1. `{{cite book}}`: `\|edition=` has extra text (help); `\|last=` has generic name (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) "Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England". Avalon.law.yale.edu. Retrieved 2013-08-01. Bogus, Carl T. "THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT". University of California at Davis Law Review 31 (1998): 309. Retrieved 1 August 2013. Bogus, Carl T. "THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT". University of California at Davis Law Review 31 (1998): 309. Retrieved 1 August 2013. editor, Gregg Lee Carter,. Guns in American society : an encyclopedia of history, politics, culture, and the law (2nd ed. ed.). Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO. p. Introduction. ISBN 978-0-313-38670-1. `{{cite book}}`: `\|edition=` has extra text (help); `\|last=` has generic name (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) "Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England". Avalon.law.yale.edu. Retrieved 2013-08-01. "Commencement Address at Yale University". Pub. Papers (June 11, 1962): 470, 471. June 11, 1962. `{{cite journal}}`: `\|access-date=` requires `\|url=` (help); Unknown parameter `\|month=` ignored (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link) LIPTAK, ADAM. "A Liberal Case for Gun Rights Sways Judiciary". New York Times. Retrieved 11 August 2013. Linder, Douglas O. (1994). "Trends in Constitution-Based Litigation in the Federal Courts, 63 U. MO. AT KAN. CITY L. REV. 41, 69 Compare U.S. CONST. amend. II with U.S. CONST. amend. III". `{{cite journal}}`: `\|access-date=` requires `\|url=` (help); Cite journal requires `\|journal=` (help) Bogus, Carl T. "THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT". University of California at Davis Law Review 31 (1998): 309. Retrieved 1 August 2013. See United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1976); United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939); Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) See Miller, 307 U.S. 174. Bogus, Carl T. "THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT". University of California at Davis Law Review 31 (1998): 309. Retrieved 1 August 2013. See United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) See United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) editor, Gregg Lee Carter,. Guns in American society : an encyclopedia of history, politics, culture, and the law (2nd ed. ed.). Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO. p. Introduction. ISBN 978-0-313-38670-1. `{{cite book}}`: `\|edition=` has extra text (help); `\|last=` has generic name (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) "Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England". Avalon.law.yale.edu. Retrieved 2013-08-01. "Commencement Address at Yale University". Pub. Papers (June 11, 1962): 470, 471. June 11, 1962. `{{cite journal}}`: `\|access-date=` requires `\|url=` (help); Unknown parameter `\|month=` ignored (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link) LIPTAK, ADAM. "A Liberal Case for Gun Rights Sways Judiciary". New York Times. Retrieved 11 August 2013. Linder, Douglas O. (1994). "Trends in Constitution-Based Litigation in the Federal Courts, 63 U. MO. AT KAN. CITY L. REV. 41, 69 Compare U.S. CONST. amend. II with U.S. CONST. amend. III". `{{cite journal}}`: `\|access-date=` requires `\|url=` (help); Cite journal requires `\|journal=` (help) Bogus, Carl T. "THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT". University of California at Davis Law Review 31 (1998): 309. Retrieved 1 August 2013. See United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1976); United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939); Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) See Miller, 307 U.S. 174. Bogus, Carl T. "THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT". University of California at Davis Law Review 31 (1998): 309. Retrieved 1 August 2013. See United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) See United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) editor, Gregg Lee Carter,. Guns in American society : an encyclopedia of history, politics, culture, and the law (2nd ed. ed.). Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO. p. Introduction. ISBN 978-0-313-38670-1. `{{cite book}}`: `\|edition=` has extra text (help); `\|last=` has generic name (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

^ Pollock, Earl (2008). The Supreme Court and American Democracy: Case Studies on Judicial Review and Public Policy. Greenwood. p. 423. ISBN 978-0-313-36525-6.
^ "held that the second amendment protects an individual's right to bear arms,"Scaros, Constantinos E. (2010). Understanding the Constitution. Jones & Bartlett Publishers. p. 484. ISBN 978-0-7637-5811-0.
"The Constitution of the United States, Analysis and Interpretation, 2008 Supplement (Senate document 110-17)" (PDF). p. 83.
^ Liptak, Adam (June 28, 2010). "Justices Extend Firearm Rights in 5-to-4 Ruling". The New York Times. Retrieved December 17, 2012.
United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178
"The Constitution of the United States, Analysis and Interpretation, 2008 Supplement (Senate document 110-17)" (PDF). p. 83.
"The Constitution of the United States, Analysis and Interpretation, 2008 Supplement (Senate document 110-17)" (PDF). p. 83.
editor, Gregg Lee Carter,. Guns in American society : an encyclopedia of history, politics, culture, and the law (2nd ed. ed.). Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO. p. Introduction. ISBN 978-0-313-38670-1. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); |last= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
"The Constitution of the United States, Analysis and Interpretation, 2008 Supplement (Senate document 110-17)" (PDF). p. 83.
editor, Gregg Lee Carter,. Guns in American society : an encyclopedia of history, politics, culture, and the law (2nd ed. ed.). Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO. p. Introduction. ISBN 978-0-313-38670-1. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); |last= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
"The Constitution of the United States, Analysis and Interpretation, 2008 Supplement (Senate document 110-17)" (PDF). p. 83.
editor, Gregg Lee Carter,. Guns in American society : an encyclopedia of history, politics, culture, and the law (2nd ed. ed.). Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO. p. Introduction. ISBN 978-0-313-38670-1. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); |last= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
"Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England". Avalon.law.yale.edu. Retrieved 2013-08-01.
Bogus, Carl T. "THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT". University of California at Davis Law Review 31 (1998): 309. Retrieved 1 August 2013.
Bogus, Carl T. "THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT". University of California at Davis Law Review 31 (1998): 309. Retrieved 1 August 2013.
^ CRS Report for Congress District of Columbia v.Heller: The Supreme Court and the Second Amendment April 11, 2008 Congressional Research Service T.J. Halsted,Legislative Attorney,American Law Division. Order Code RL34446 http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34446_20080411.pdf.
editor, Gregg Lee Carter,. Guns in American society : an encyclopedia of history, politics, culture, and the law (2nd ed. ed.). Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO. p. Introduction. ISBN 978-0-313-38670-1. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); |last= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
"Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England". Avalon.law.yale.edu. Retrieved 2013-08-01.
Bogus, Carl T. "THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT". University of California at Davis Law Review 31 (1998): 309. Retrieved 1 August 2013.
Bogus, Carl T. "THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT". University of California at Davis Law Review 31 (1998): 309. Retrieved 1 August 2013.
editor, Gregg Lee Carter,. Guns in American society : an encyclopedia of history, politics, culture, and the law (2nd ed. ed.). Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO. p. Introduction. ISBN 978-0-313-38670-1. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); |last= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
"Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England". Avalon.law.yale.edu. Retrieved 2013-08-01.
"Commencement Address at Yale University". Pub. Papers (June 11, 1962): 470, 471. June 11, 1962. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)
LIPTAK, ADAM. "A Liberal Case for Gun Rights Sways Judiciary". New York Times. Retrieved 11 August 2013.
Linder, Douglas O. (1994). "Trends in Constitution-Based Litigation in the Federal Courts, 63 U. MO. AT KAN. CITY L. REV. 41, 69 Compare U.S. CONST. amend. II with U.S. CONST. amend. III". {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
Bogus, Carl T. "THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT". University of California at Davis Law Review 31 (1998): 309. Retrieved 1 August 2013.
See United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1976); United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939); Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)
See Miller, 307 U.S. 174.
Bogus, Carl T. "THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT". University of California at Davis Law Review 31 (1998): 309. Retrieved 1 August 2013.
See United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
See United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
editor, Gregg Lee Carter,. Guns in American society : an encyclopedia of history, politics, culture, and the law (2nd ed. ed.). Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO. p. Introduction. ISBN 978-0-313-38670-1. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); |last= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
"Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England". Avalon.law.yale.edu. Retrieved 2013-08-01.
"Commencement Address at Yale University". Pub. Papers (June 11, 1962): 470, 471. June 11, 1962. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)
LIPTAK, ADAM. "A Liberal Case for Gun Rights Sways Judiciary". New York Times. Retrieved 11 August 2013.
Linder, Douglas O. (1994). "Trends in Constitution-Based Litigation in the Federal Courts, 63 U. MO. AT KAN. CITY L. REV. 41, 69 Compare U.S. CONST. amend. II with U.S. CONST. amend. III". {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
Bogus, Carl T. "THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT". University of California at Davis Law Review 31 (1998): 309. Retrieved 1 August 2013.
See United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1976); United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939); Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)
See Miller, 307 U.S. 174.
Bogus, Carl T. "THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT". University of California at Davis Law Review 31 (1998): 309. Retrieved 1 August 2013.
See United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
See United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
editor, Gregg Lee Carter,. Guns in American society : an encyclopedia of history, politics, culture, and the law (2nd ed. ed.). Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO. p. Introduction. ISBN 978-0-313-38670-1. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); |last= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Thank you, while I strive for an "encyclopedic style", I do feel that good writing includes an unrestricted vocabulary. "Spite" is vaguely inflammatory (in this context) to me, let me crack open the Thesaurus. "Unique" is not my wording, its a direct quote from the UC Davis Prof Bogus (actual name) research paper. I'm not opposed to changing it for paraphrase sake, but I think his point was that there are two Amendments that has received relatively little attention over their lifespan and then over a very short period of time, one is immensely 'popular' with the public, Academia, and the Judiciary. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 15:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

As for the "10 of 12" phrase, I thought I was incorporating your clarification (specificity, as I refer to it) from the previous section, no? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 15:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

No it is the United States courts of appeals that split 3 of 12 endorsing "standard model" (Hutzell 8th, Emerson 5th, and Parker D.C..) one (9th in Silveira) repudiating the standard model calling it the "Traditional view" given the dissent in each it would be enough to say: In the Twenty-First Century the United States courts of appeals split on the question does Second Amendment confer an individual the right to keep and bear arms? J8079s (talk) 17:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, so what's the final score? 9 of 12 were for or against "what"? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

9 of 12 ruled consistently with the collective rights view. 3 ruled towards the individual rights view, which was ultimately endorsed by the supreme court. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Got it, thank you... :) --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:19, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not that simple. I woud much rather drop the counting than find the sources needed to determine the "score" (a detailed break down has a place at Firearms case law}. only "Parker" had any impact on SCOTUS. I cut and pasted my self into conner I would like to leave it at "split" by recasting the sentence. J8079s (talk) 20:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The quote from Blackstone about "natural rights" gives the impression that DC vs. Heller was based on a natural rights interpretation. In fact Scalia, who wrote the majority decision, rejects natural rights theory. TFD (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Heller specifically says "codified a pre-existing right" and quotes Cruikshank as well "his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and specifically quotes Blackstone "His description of it cannot possibly be thought to tie it to militia or military service. It was, he said, “the natural right of resistance and self-preservation,”" as well as 5 other citations and arguments discussing natural rights. Its conclusion is "As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right" On what are you basing your statement that he rejected the natural rights argument? Perhaps you are confusing Steven's/Bryer dissent which did attempt to reject that argument? Beyond that, even if Heller is not based on natural rights, Blackstone's commentary could still be relevant to the lede as a (the most?) notable historical commentary. Alito also brought up the Natural rights argument in his opinion in McDonald. Beyond that, we are quoting Blackwell as saying it is an auxiliary right, and the natural right is "self defense". Gaijin42 (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

My analysis is born out by several RS as well,

Gaijin42 (talk) 20:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Scalia wrote, "In interpreting this text, we are guided by the principle that “he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.”" While he quotes Blackstone and others who said that the right to keep and bear arms was based on the "natural right" of self-defense, he does not himself say that natural rights exist. In Scalia and the Lure of the Natural Law, Hadley Arkes, similar to article you provided by Lund, says that Scalia strayed from the positive law view of originalists to a natural rights view. (The article explains itself better than I could and since it is brief I would appreciate you read it before replying.) But I think it would be wrong to categorically state that Scalia had made such a radical change in his thinking. Also, if we quote Blackstone's natural rights view, which is generally favored by liberals, then we need to balance it with the positive law view that is generally supported by conservatives and libertarians. McDonald only uses the term "natural right" once, and it is in quoting an earlier case. While it mentions the "right of self-defense", it does not say whether it is a positive law or natural right. TFD (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

As Yosemite Sam is famous for saying, Now wait just one cotton pickin' minute... I am all for writing with clarity of purpose and meaning, but if we going to start speculating as to how any reader might infer or interpolate how we are wording or structuring the article, then this will devolve back into the mess we've been dealing with ad nauseam.

We will state the facts as clearly and as plainly as we can given our available references that still adhere to the WP:MOS. Everyone OK with this? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Yes the decision was based on the evidence that it was a "pre-existing right", not that it was a natural right. TFD (talk) 18:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The natural or inherent right (both according to Blackstone, and Scalaia) is Self Defense, which is what we state in the proposed text. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

my take so far

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

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

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

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

I am not stuck on the name, especially not in the sentence its in. However I find it is a common name even in rebuttal. We must use the term somewhere J8079s (talk) 01:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Is the "only the 3rd" statement factually true anymore after heller and mcdonald? Are we sourcing that to Miller era sources? I think we should avoid "standard model" all together, it was a POV term from gun-rights (first used by noted conservative Glenn Reynolds in 1995 ), and we would have to define it anyway. Just use straightforward individual right or some such. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

With the preface "prior to Heller", yes, the citation is from 1998. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

sources vary on this point some include Houston v.Moore 1821, Scott v. Sandford 1857, United States v. Cruikshank 1876, Presser v. Illinois 1886, Logan v. United States 1892, Miller v. Texas 1894, Brown v. Walker 1896, Robertson v. Baldwin 1897 others include more we will need to leave at "few". J8079s (talk) 21:06, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

As written, the"prior to heller" text modifies the "only a few" statement, but does not qualify the "only the 3rd has less" statement. With Heller and Mcdonald, if the 2nd has now overtaken whoever #3 previously was, our statement is wrong. I feel like stating "only the 3rd" is WP:OR particularly as our "judicial attention" statement is not limited to SCOTUS, but includes lower court rulings, and I don't see any WP:RS that has been doing counts there. I suggest gutting the comparison phrase "While in recent years it has been the subject of Academic inquiry and judicial interest, ~~only the Third Amendment (which prohibits the quartering of troops in homes without the owner's consent) has received less judicial attention. P~~ ,prior to the landmark 2008 Heller case, the United States Supreme Court handed down only a few opinions dealing directly with the Amendment, the last in 1939 (with the Miller case),"

Beyond that, the "prior to heller" modifier is confusing, and makes it read like after heller there may have been MANY rulings, when in fact there are only 2. The "only a few" line seems mostly accurate (although certainly we could find something even better) even if applied to all time ever. Perhaps something like "While in recent years it has been the subject of Academic inquiry and judicial interest, SCOTUS has only directly ruled on the 2A X times, with a YY year gap between Miller and Heller" or something to that effect. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Its from a cited and researched paper by a UC Davis law professor. I don't care what's written as long as its neutral and factually accurate, but its needs to be done with decent grammar usage and accurate sentence structure. Regardless of everyone's personal opinions, an article regarding any Constitutional Amendment deserves no less. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 03:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree entirely on your goal. I am just concerned that commentary done 15 years ago is mainly relevant to the state of things 15 years ago. Lots of court cases have come and gone since then, and many of them dealt with the second amendment. Beyond that, is counting pages in a book a reliable technique to make this analysis? If one hypothetical judge decides to write a 40 page ruling, is that equal to 40 1 page rulings? He also doesn't mention the page counts for other amendments which we could use as a guideline for "how far behind" the 2nd was. I am more than happy to say that the second amendment was not heavily investigated judicially (especially at the SCOTUS level, where we can give a solid count) - but I think we should be doing so in a way that is we can be sure is still accurate. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

back to perspective

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

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

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

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

So I think that leaves us with...

I wish there was a Category of "firearm related political groups", a catchall that includes the NRA and the Brady Center. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Ah hah! I just had an epiphany!!

--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 23:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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

In the Nineteenth Century, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence", but limited enforcement of the Second Amendment to the Federal government alone via the 1875 Cruikshank case.Gaijin42 (talk) 17:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I liked your first version better...

Recapping...

--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The "codified a pre-existing right" text is actually from heller, so if we use that during the 19th century we have to do it in wiki's voice, not as a quote. Thats why I made my change. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

arbitrary break for ease of editing

OK, so this...?

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

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

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

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

non-collective seems to take a pov that it WAS collective before though. What source(s) are you relying on for the "also"? Gaijin42 (talk) 01:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so what do we call the pre-Heller era if not "collective"? I'm not 'for' or 'against' any particular term, I'm just trying to be descriptive. I found 2 for the "also", but I have to dig them up again. One is that huge compendium, "Guns in American Society", but I'll have to located the page.

I don't think we should describe the time period in any way, because there is no single agreed widespread description of that period used (something that would comply with WP:RS/AC for example.) Just give facts of what happened in that period. "Miller ignited a debate between the collective and individual rights interpretations of the Second Amendment. The 12 Lower district courts split in their rulings with 9 taking the collective viewpoint, and 3 using the individual rights model. (next paragraph, Heller)" Gaijin42 (talk) 01:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Gaijin42. Just give the facts. Describing the era between Miller and Heller as favoring the collective right viewpoint would run into the ban on synthesis. It's better to simply refer to the disagreement in the legal, academic, and political communities during that period.

Also, McDonald did not overrule any Supreme Court decisions. Only Justice Thomas would have done so. The plurality opinion distinguished those earlier decisions (e.g., Cruikshank) on the ground that those decisions ruled that the Second Amendment was not incorporated via the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, but did not discuss the Due Process Clause. The plurality ruled that those decisions were not precedent for whether the Second Amendment could be incorporated via the Due Process Clause. The plurality opinion is the de facto Opinion of the Court, because it is the opinion that supports the holding and is based on the narrowest grounds (see Marks v. United States). SMP0328. (talk) 02:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The Macdonald wording isn't mine, not sure who edited that, does "clarify" work in this context? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 02:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Nicely worded, so....

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

I am good with this version. the interesting thing about the split is that the 9/12 are all 20th century (I think), but the 3/12 are all 21st. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Subject to MOS-based corrections, I'm satisfied with the latest proposed wording. SMP0328. (talk) 04:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Whoo Hoo!!! I have to admit that I'm a little "proximity blind" at this point. Any suggestions for polish or smoothing or should we just push it live and see how the masses take to it? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:34, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Potential new version

Somehow I missed the differences between the last two versions. I think you should make this the new lede – any tweaks, if needed, can then be done in the article and discussed in a separate section on Talk. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 18:07, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Nothing substantive since the immediately previous version. I tweaked the coding a bit, I was just posting a clean version for review. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

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

I disagree. The quote specifically is put in the context of militia weapons. The later debate is well documented. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Is this something that can be fixed with a reference? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 02:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

No one claims that the bill of rights created rights. You need to explain too whether it was a natural or a pre-existing right. TFD (talk) 02:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Did you read the same first paragraph that I did. What distinction are you making that isn't present in the wording? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 02:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I am posting this source to help gain consensus, so far all we have agreement on is that "Heller" and its extensions has the most weight. If we could all take a look at Vile, John R. (2010). A Companion to the United States Constitution and Its Amendments. ABC-CLIO. pp. 137 138. ISBN 9780313380082. Retrieved 19 August 2013. then re-read what we have as if you did know anything about the 2nd amendment I think what we need to do will be easier. J8079s (talk) 03:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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

In Heller the Court decided that the right to bear arms already existed in law when the Bill of Rights was written. The way to understand it was to consider what the law allowed people before 1789. If it were a natural right then it would be irrelevant what the federal, state and municipal laws had been. For example, the Supreme Court decided that the right to privacy was a natural right that protected the right to abortion, even though the laws did not recognize such a right in 1789. Although Blackstone was used as a source that the law recognized a right to bear arms, Scalia does not himself say self-defense was a natural right. The judgment merely says, "The Second Amendent protects an individual right to possess a firearm...and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." How and why that right arose is beyond what the Court decided. TFD (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree. But we don't say that it was a natural right. So I am unsure what your objection is. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

@Gaijin42. If we have Miller in the lead, I think that the best thing to put in would be a summary of the Congressional Research Service summary rather than a quote which is completely misleading when removed from context and placed in a different context. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on how it is misleading? WP:RS/AC is wide that Miller allows limiting of weapons not related to militia service. What text do you suggest using CRS as a cite? Gaijin42 (talk) 16:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

It would take some time to create a good "summary of the summary". So I thought I'd start with floating it as a general idea. North8000 (talk) 18:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Conceptually, I am not opposed, but obviously we would need to have at least an inlking of the text to come to a decision. Can you give the $0.50 version? Gaijin42 (talk) 18:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Going this fast I'm just going from memory and am afraid I'm screwing it up. But briefly I think that they said that the court's ruling only addressed whether the "militia route" right is unlimited with respect to firearm type. And they said "no". And that the ruling did not address whether or not an individual right (un-connceted to any military service) exists / is protected. And so it was and is considered (by all) to be confusing/ giving no guidance on the latter question. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

right. So how does that disagree with what we put in? They can limit weapons unrelated to service in a militia. The ruling is set off a debate about collective vs individual rights. That seems perfectly consistent with what you just said. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Previous consensus was to call miller ambiguous,. I left a note at Talk:United_States_v._Miller. If any one needs to say more about Miller" that would be the place. While Miller is debated it did not ignite any thing. J8079s (talk) 04:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Ignite certainly is poetic language, but you agree that there was a long standing debate between collective and individual interpretations, with miller's ambiguity at the fulcrum of that debate? Gaijin42 (talk) 14:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I replaced "ignite" in the most recent version I posted. It seemed better to remove any hyperbole. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

No Debate is not really historical. Best summary from "Vile" above popular understandings and scholarly commentary have tended to diverge (until the standard model) Any debate is between the "gun grabers" and the "bunker guys"I agree with North8000 about Miller. J8079s (talk) 00:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Being bold

OK, I'm pushing this live...

I was on the fence. Did a minor tweak and did not revert. North8000 (talk) 11:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Likewise, I was not entirely happy with the wording, but only did a minor tweak, fixing grammar, punctuation, and removing the "scare" quote POV push. I don't entirely like the present wording, but I can live with it. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 15:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I to think it "sucks" but its better than it was. J8079s (talk) 18:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Ummm.... thanks, I think... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 06:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I have restored the minor edits I made to Scalhotrod revision to the Introduction. He had reverted my edit on the ground that I had not sufficiently contributed to the discussion over the revision. I had earlier said that I reserved the right to make minor changes to his wording. Regardless, I have as much right to make minor edits to this article as does any other registered editor. Scalhotrod also claimed that my minor edits would lead to conflict. I don't understand that would be the case, as my edits are all nonsubstantive. SMP0328. (talk) 20:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not claiming to be "Hemmingway", but your sentence structure, grammar usage, and overall writing style is lacking in my opinion. Your edits make no sense nor seem to have any particular purpose other than to force your style on the lead. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 23:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not forcing anything on anybody. Are you claiming that your revisions to the Introduction can not be improved upon? Your reverting of my changes appear, IMO, that you feel the need to protect the changes you have made. SMP0328. (talk) 00:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

No, but it can be worsened considerably. I had the patience to discuss the use of individual words when constructing the new lead. Now you're starting the hacking process all over again, the same kinds of seemingly "constructive edits" that got the article delisted from Good status. Where were your edits and suggestions over the month that we were editing? I could just as easily claim that your edits are disruptive at this point given the time and energy that been contributed by a variety of editors. If you want to start this process all over again and come up with something else, please do. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I have restored the capitalization fixes I made earlier. I believe these fixes are required by the MOS. As for the wording tweaks I earlier made, and that were reverted by Scalhotrod, I'll trust the judgment of my fellow editors. I believe my desired changes would not cause any dispute or undermine the article. I await the opinions of my fellow editors. SMP0328. (talk) 03:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I have not analyzed everything but wanted to mention that SMP0328 has been a long time editor here and I've always seen them to do excellent, careful and expert work. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I supported Scalhotrod’s bold edits as a good step forward. I also support SMP0328‘s additions, as they seem to streamline the prose. I saw no style changes that were detrimental. We must be careful not to claim a personal ownership of our edits. Kudos to both of you! Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 02:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Grahamboat; your bold change is an improvement and SMPs change is a minor improvement on that. In particular, eliminating the need for the phrase "... alone via the 1875 Cruishank case" improves the flow. Also, the paragraph HTML tags were not paired correctly and removing them improves the HTML. Celestra (talk) 03:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

After reviewing and analyzing SMP’s edits, and taking into consideration Scalhotrod’s objections, I find the former improves the article and therefore I reinserted SMP’s edits. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 02:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you all for your assistance. I'm glad this issue has been resolved. SMP0328. (talk) 15:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, we finally have consensus on something... :) If the majority of the key players are happy, so am I. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Article style

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

I am sorry that the information was not more useful to you. The difficulty is that the power of the second amendment is defined by the history. There is no definitive source of what it means, except for the various rulings that courts have made over the centuries. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

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

I suggest looking at Arms trafficking, ATF gunwalking scandal and "The Way of the Gun" (PDF). Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I've been told by one book writer and another person who works in academia that they have used Misplaced Pages articles solely for their reference and further reading lists. Apparently, if nothing else, we as WP editors excel at ferreting out sources for information.

@209.120.171.227, as for what you are looking for, it doesn't exist. The court judgements notwithstanding, its all a matter of interpretation depending on an individual's perspective, so its a continuum. To understand what you are seeking, try to come up with a model that states the continuum in its most basic way. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 06:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

It may not exist, but it should exist, and it should be the beginning of a Misplaced Pages article. Misplaced Pages is not meant for detailed discussion of topics, it simply evolved to include that since the internet provides no limit on the amount of information it includes, but the basic discussion should never be missing. Try to think about what an article on the second ammendment in the Encyclopaedia Britannica included. They somehow managed to discuss any topic briefly so that somebody wanting some basic knowledge could find it quickly. Although Misplaced Pages should not be limited to this kind of reader, it should start any article with simple descriptions of the subject, and this article fails to do so. Try thinking as well of a highschool student reading this article, and you get the idea that the ultimate goal of Misplaced Pages, which is to provide knowledge to everybody, is lost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.120.171.227 (talk) 16:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

As a guide to editors, the main question I was trying to answer was to what extent states are bound in the present by the second amendment. What if citizens in a state voted to ban all guns? What if they voted to ban all guns except small firearms? This may sound like something I should know, but I am not American, so I have no idea. The introduction shows that the interpretation was historically controversial, but it says nothing about the present interpretation. If may be the case that the interpretation is still controversial, but in that case the introduction should clearly say it. It only says that "the debate between the 'gun control' and 'gun rights' movements and related organizations continues", which is a debate about whether guns should be banned, but it is not a debate on the second amendment, which would be a debate on whether guns are actually banned. 209.120.171.227 (talk) 17:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The "topic" of this article isn't a person or a field or technology, it is a 27 word sentence. So, once we spend 27 words covering it, everything else is stuff related to it (history, interpretations, impacts etc.) I think that most of the things that you are seeking to learn involve other areas such as the US legal system in relation to the constitution, and the interaction between the constitution and politics. But in thinking through an answer to your question, I realized that you are right, this article is unclear in a key area. The (not unlimited) right for personal ownership of and main uses of firearms was basically unquestioned (and not dealt with in the courts) until the last few decades, at which time the interpretation of the protections offered by the 2nd Amendment became a topic of importance and debate. The Heller decision decided the biggest questions, but, as in inherent in doing so, left large areas untouched, essentially leaving the untouched areas to the discretion of lawmakers and lower courts. We have an oddity that our amendments only limit what the Federal government can do to you until they are "incorporated" at which time they also limit what lower governments can do to you. The McDonald case did this with the 2nd amendment.

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

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

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

After a couple of months working in the subject, I can finally see that what I wanted to look for in the article is actually in the third paragraph of the article, although it is written in such a way that an uninformed reador is not able to understand it. I am sure most contributors to this article are lawers that know perfectly well how common law works and the way it makes precedents binding. But many readers don't, especially those who are not lawyers and those who live in countries with different legal systems (like myself). I am aware that most English-speaking nations have common law, but wikipedia in English is read by many readers all over the world, and I guess you should make sure that a universal reader understands that two cases like those mentioned in the third paragraph have huge implications. 209.120.171.227 (talk) 19:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

While I sympathize with your point, and am certainly open to improving the wording to address this issue - an article on the second amendment is not the place to describe how the entire system of American law (or any other country that is based on common law) works. Every page on every law or amendment would need to serve as a primer for the legal system in which it exists, which is not a viable model for an encyclopedia. I will think on wording that could help elucidate this issue without causing more problems than it fixes. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Lead revisited

I have edited the lead to be more neutral and remove a POV fork to another article that is hotly debated in the United States. I have removed the claim of what right the amendment protects and simply added the actual text as it reads.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I have restored the consensus-based Introduction. Please reach consensus here for any substantive change to the Introduction before making such change. Adding a quote of the amendment to the Introduction is redundant as the text of the amendment is already in the Text section. SMP0328. (talk) 00:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

It can't be redundant in the lead as the lead is for a summary of the sections and body of the article. I have reverted you as your edit summary is not satisfactory. One does not require to seek consensus for a bold edit and the above discussion seems to be pointed at other discussion. POV forks are against Misplaced Pages Policy and how that slipped by that entire discussion is odd, but I am challenging it now. The sentence is immediately contradicted by the actual lead itself where two conflicting Supreme court cases have placed the question as to whether the claim is accurate. There is no way we can claim that the second amendment is, what it was claiming to be and then leading the reader to an article that expands that point of view. Please discuss as you suggested, but I would request that reverts have more reasoning than against consensus. That means nothing without the proper context and I really don't see consensus for that alone. The rest of the lead as discussed in detail above has not been altered.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23 has reverted again, and asked for this to be "fleshed out on the talk page". So I will request further input from editors involved in the above discussion and the projects for further community input. This may have been brought up and was never fully discussed.

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

(edit conflict, responding only to previous) Mark, there are so many things messed up with your post and edit that it would take a long post to address them. First, you basis for the claim about SMP's edit summary is the exact reverse.....their made sense, and yours didn't )regarding a "fork"....where is the "fork" article? Second, you seemed to have picked up the the "bold" terminology form BRD but ignored the rest. (Starting with the "R"). Third, the lead is not only consensused, it has followed the definition by the highest authority (SCOTUS) North8000 (talk) 00:57, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for responding North, Yes, I reverted a revert. One I found lacking of any actual reasoning on Misplaced Pages, regardless of your interpretation. The revert simply said "Gain consensus" and I don't have to, nor does anyone to make the edit, but defending the revert does take more than "there is a consensus". Highest authority...what does that even mean. They are a primary source. Analysis or interpretation of their wording is not for us and I see no RS to verify the claim that was made about what right the second amendment protects. Thoughts?--Mark Miller (talk) 01:17, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Supreme Court decisions are not primary sources. The Constitution is the primary source. SMP0328. (talk) 01:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

That is ridiculous, and extremely inaccurate. Supreme Court decisions are primary sources and interpretations of their decisions are secondary. The constitution itself is indeed a primary source as well, but the two are separate documents. Can you demonstrate this suggestion?--Mark Miller (talk) 01:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

"Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England". Avalon.law.yale.edu. Retrieved 2013-08-01.
Houston v. Moore 1821, Scott v. Sandford 1857, United States v. Cruikshank 1876, Presser v. Illinois 1886, Logan v. United States 1892, Miller v. Texas 1894, Brown v. Walker 1896, Robertson v. Baldwin 1897
See Miller, 307 U.S. 174.
See United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
See United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
^ CRS Report for Congress District of Columbia v.Heller: The Supreme Court and the Second Amendment April 11, 2008 Congressional Research Service T.J. Halsted,Legislative Attorney,American Law Division. Order Code RL34446 http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34446_20080411.pdf.
^ Pollock, Earl (2008). The Supreme Court and American Democracy: Case Studies on Judicial Review and Public Policy. Greenwood. p. 423. ISBN 978-0-313-36525-6.
^ Liptak, Adam (June 28, 2010). "Justices Extend Firearm Rights in 5-to-4 Ruling". The New York Times. Retrieved December 17, 2012.
editor, Gregg Lee Carter,. Guns in American society : an encyclopedia of history, politics, culture, and the law (2nd ed. ed.). Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO. p. Introduction. ISBN 978-0-313-38670-1. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); |last= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
"Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England". Avalon.law.yale.edu. Retrieved 2013-08-01.
See United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
See United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
editor, Gregg Lee Carter,. Guns in American society : an encyclopedia of history, politics, culture, and the law (2nd ed. ed.). Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO. p. Introduction. ISBN 978-0-313-38670-1. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); |last= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
"Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England". Avalon.law.yale.edu. Retrieved 2013-08-01.
See United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
See United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
editor, Gregg Lee Carter,. Guns in American society : an encyclopedia of history, politics, culture, and the law (2nd ed. ed.). Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO. p. Introduction. ISBN 978-0-313-38670-1. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); |last= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
"Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England". Avalon.law.yale.edu. Retrieved 2013-08-01.
See United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
See United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
editor, Gregg Lee Carter,. Guns in American society : an encyclopedia of history, politics, culture, and the law (2nd ed. ed.). Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO. p. Introduction. ISBN 978-0-313-38670-1. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); |last= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
"Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England". Avalon.law.yale.edu. Retrieved 2013-08-01.
See United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
See United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
editor, Gregg Lee Carter,. Guns in American society : an encyclopedia of history, politics, culture, and the law (2nd ed. ed.). Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO. p. Introduction. ISBN 978-0-313-38670-1. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); |last= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
"Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England". Avalon.law.yale.edu. Retrieved 2013-08-01.
See United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
See United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
editor, Gregg Lee Carter,. Guns in American society : an encyclopedia of history, politics, culture, and the law (2nd ed. ed.). Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-0-313-38670-1. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); |last= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
editor, Gregg Lee Carter,. Guns in American society : an encyclopedia of history, politics, culture, and the law (2nd ed. ed.). Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO. p. Introduction. ISBN 978-0-313-38670-1. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); |last= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
"Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England". Avalon.law.yale.edu. Retrieved 2013-08-01.
See United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
See United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
editor, Gregg Lee Carter,. Guns in American society : an encyclopedia of history, politics, culture, and the law (2nd ed. ed.). Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-0-313-38670-1. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); |last= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
editor, Gregg Lee Carter,. Guns in American society : an encyclopedia of history, politics, culture, and the law (2nd ed. ed.). Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO. p. Introduction. ISBN 978-0-313-38670-1. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); |last= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Denning, Brannon (1996). "CAN THE SIMPLE CITE BE TRUSTED?: LOWER COURT INTERPRETATIONS OF UNITED STATES V. MILLER AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT". Cumberland Law Review. 26.
Vile, Jorn. A companion to the united states constitution and its amendments.
Carter, Greg Lee. Guns in American Society.
Uviller H. Richard. The Militia and the Right to Arms, Or, How the Second Amendment Fell Silent.
Williams, David. . {{cite book}}: Check |url= value (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
McClurg, p. 139
"Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England". Avalon.law.yale.edu. Retrieved 2013-08-01.
See United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
See United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
editor, Gregg Lee Carter,. Guns in American society : an encyclopedia of history, politics, culture, and the law (2nd ed. ed.). Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-0-313-38670-1. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); |last= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
editor, Gregg Lee Carter,. Guns in American society : an encyclopedia of history, politics, culture, and the law (2nd ed. ed.). Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO. p. Introduction. ISBN 978-0-313-38670-1. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); |last= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Categories: