Jump to content

Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution/Archive 29

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31→Archive 35

the right of everyone to bear arms came first to America in the text of the constitution (as amended by the Second Amendment)

This is clearly false. Americans, like the British, were bearing arms for hunting as well as for defense long before the Second Amendment was passed. --Hauskalainen (talk) 16:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, provide your sourcing. Also, we must represent all significant points of view and a major (and famous) point of view is that 'bear arms' implies military uses "one does not bear arms against a rabbit". At the least, we must write the section to reflect that there is differing opinion whether "having arms" (for hunting or self defense) is or is not synonymous with 'bearing arms'. SaltyBoatr get wet 20:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I know you have a bee in your bonnet about the difference between bearing arms (warfare) and merely owning arms. Franky I am not interested. I am not submitting text for the article so your "provide sourcing" quip á la WP:Game is way out of order. What we are talking about is the allegation that the right of everyone to bear arms came first to America in the text of the constitution (as amended by the Second Amendment). All I am saying is that the story is false because the English did have a common right to have arms for their defense; it was a qualified one (as is the American's right still today) and they had this right anyway before the passing of the Second Amendment into law. The Second Amendment did not change very much other than to make this aspect of law difficult to change in the future.--Hauskalainen (talk) 00:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Does he have to provide reliable sourcing that caveman used spears too? or was that militia based as well? 96.237.120.38 (talk) 23:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I know you have a bee in your bonnet about the difference between bearing arms (warfare) and merely owning arms. No. Rather, I notice that the reliable sourcing disagrees whether "bear arms" means military service, or owning guns (or both!). Per policy around here we must neutrally describe all significant point of views seen in reliable sourcing. We are not allowed to just pay attention to the the point of view we personally like. SaltyBoatr get wet 15:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Again: The US Supreme Court has stated that to "bear arms" simply means to "carry arms" and anyone who thinks different is a wackjob living beyond the "looking glass". This quote, already in the article, was pointed out a few days ago.
A purposive qualifying phrase that contradicts the word or phrase it modifies is unknown this side of the looking glass (except, apparently, in some courses on Linguistics). If "bear arms" means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage ("for the purpose of self-defense" or "to make war against the King"). But if "bear arms" means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add "for the purpose of killing game." The right "to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game" is worthy of the mad hatter.[165]96.237.120.38 (talk) 16:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Does the opinion of the Supreme Court cancel the policy here to include all significant points of view seen in reliable sourcing? SaltyBoatr get wet 16:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
It cancels YOUR policy to push the meaning of "to bear arms" as meaning only to bear arms in warfare. In the words of the US Supreme Court, anyone who thinks that to "bear arms" means anything but to "carry arms" lives beyond the looking glass, i.e. is crazy, or colloquially "is a whack job".96.237.120.38 (talk) 16:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
For the record I am not asking for "meaning only to bear arms in warfare". I am asking that we recognize both meanings that we see in reliable sourcing. Where you and I seem to disagree is that you want to exclude the meaning which you dislike. SaltyBoatr get wet 17:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
You didn't sound like you were pushing anything except your own agenda a few comments up. To quote you "I know you have a bee in your bonnet about the difference between bearing arms (warfare) and merely owning arms.". And in case you missed it, a person has the right use arms to defend himself, his family, total strangers, his state and the U.S. of A. The last two involve engaging in warfare.96.237.120.38 (talk) 18:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

This is my start. Please leave your comments in the section above under my own and sign each one (as I have done). Others contributing should do the same.--Hauskalainen (talk) 16:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

(typical comment for each of the above sections)

Comment At the core, this is a problem because Hauskalainen is describing what he sees as being "truth" in his well considered opinion. Whether or not his opinion is correct, (and I grant he might be correct), we still deserve a chance to confirm he is correct by reading verification of his ideas in third party reliable sourcing. For a very long time now, Hauskalainen has not pointed to third party reliable sourcing that verifies his opinion of what is true. Until that happens, this has the appearance of prohibited original research. Here is a pointer back to a stable version of this article section that was reasonably well sourced[1]. SaltyBoatr get wet 17:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
No the core issue is that "story" being "spun" in the article is deliberately misleading and is not based on solid irrefutable evidence. As such it is not reflective of alternative points of view. When I tried to add these they were swiftly deleted. When I expanded the Bill of Rights to show it was not a grant of new right but a re-assertion of ancient rights not just for Protestants (a myth) but for everyone, my edits were deleted leaving the article back telling these silly POV myths. I am sure that if I expanded on the Blackstone Commentaries to show that keeping arms for defense was an ancient and personal right long before the passage of the Bill of Rights, that would have been deleted too. The reason being that it too would not fit the myth that Salty wishes us to hear - the "developing rights" myth. Wikipedia should not be used to tell these myths.--Hauskalainen (talk) 00:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
1) Who, beyond Hauskalainen, says this is a myth? 2) Which policy in Wikipedia says that so-called "myth" which is published by a well known scholar in a book[2] by a book published highly respected university publishing house "should not be used"? SaltyBoatr get wet 14:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
It is a myth that people got the right to self defense "granted" to them. Every person has the right to defend himself and it is self evident that in order to "adequately" defend yourself you need weapons in the same class as those to be used against you.96.237.120.38 (talk) 01:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Hauskalainen and IP, could you please provide the name of the legal case before 1689 that confirmed the right of keeping arms. TFD (talk) 04:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
The question was whether or not the right to self defense is a myth. Why don't you provide a case showing that it doesn't exist.96.237.120.38 (talk) 10:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
So it seems it's your turn in this apparent game of WP:TAGTEAM to start WP:GAME. (Sorry if that seems WP:UNCIVIL but this is how it seems). Okay. You refer to "legal case" as though one legal case established the right. The right to life and the liberty to live it is as fully as one can is a right so self evident that it s considered to be a natural right which judges have defended since time immemorial. This is why both Blackstone and Malcolm and the drafters of the English Bill of Rights refer to it as an ancient right. It is why the American Supreme Court in Heller regarded it as such without the need to refer to case law. Because it is part of natural law it is ergo a part of the common law. Though the common law often refers to previous judgements there is no need to do so when it comes to common law defending common natural rights.--Hauskalainen (talk) 08:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Look if I claimed that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution confirmed an existing right and was challenged I could point to Semayne's case (1604) as proof. If the right to bear arms existed before 1689 then you should be able to find a case too. If the right to bear arms existed then we would expect to see a judgment from the Restoration period (1660-1688), the period when the government took people's guns away from them, where someone sued the government to get their guns back. Could you please provide the name of one. By the way, please do not accuse other editors of bad faith. All I am asking of you is to provide sources. TFD (talk) 09:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
History states that Ugh the Caveman had a right to his spears and clubs. Sad to say there is no written record of what happened when someone tried to take Ugh's spears and clubs, But I am certain that it involved clubbing and spearing.96.237.120.38 (talk) 11:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
You write as if there was a clear and well established separation between King and the Courts. There was not (and neither for that matter was there a clear distinction between the Church and the State). In spite of Magna Carta there were many attempts by the King to put himself above the law of the land and occassionally the King succeeded. There was a famous case about this around the time. The case in Godden I think. There would not have been much certainty that any case of the kind you are asking me to cite would have succeeded. --Hauskalainen (talk) 11:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
No source claims that there was ever any right to keep and bear arms outside common law countries. TFD (talk) 19:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
If you ever told a Viking that he had no right to his axe, he'd chop you up into little bits with it. If you told a Mongol he had no right to his bow, he'd shoot you full of arrows. If you tried to take the sword from a Roman citizen soldier, I would NOT want to be you. The Romans were an inventive lot when it came to punishment. 96.237.120.38 (talk) 11:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
If a case against the King involving the right to bear arms would have been unsuccessful in common law courts then no such right existed at common law. TFD (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
How do you reconcile your views, with the fact that at least one English King was sent packing (James II),partially for disarming people.96.237.120.38 (talk) 11:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Blackstone's Commentaries are a SECONDARY SOURCE

Blackstones Commentaries are a set of books where Blackstone published his "course lectures" for teaching law. His Commentaries are therefore the equivalent of textbooks used to teach a class on law. Textbooks are about as "mainstream" secondary sources as you can get. Per the text below, one can take it that wiki policy on questions of law is to use primary sources in preference to secondary ones as only primary sources are authoritative and precedential, while secondary sources are only persuasive at best.

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Secondary_source

Law

In the legal field, source classification is important because the persuasiveness of a source usually depends upon its history. Primary sources may include cases, constitutions, statutes, administrative regulations, and other sources of binding legal authority, while secondary legal sources may include books, articles, and encyclopedias.[17] Legal writers usually prefer to cite primary sources because only primary sources are authoritative and precedential, while secondary sources are only persuasive at best.[18]96.237.120.38 (talk) 22:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

That is the equivalent of claiming that the federalist papers are a secondary source for interpreting the U. S. Bill of Rights. Instead of relying on modern academic research we would have an argument between Birchers and other extremists about how they interpreted it. TFD (talk) 01:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
The Federalist Papers are in fact a secondary source for interpreting the Bill of Rights, but the ANTI-Federalist papers are an even better source. Both have been used by the US Supreme Court and other courts for that very purpose. BTW: What do the Birchers say about the Second Amendment? Perhaps, that it protects a pre-existing individual right? Sounds like exactly what the US Supreme Court said. Imagine that!96.237.120.38 (talk) 02:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Please read what I wrote above: "According to S. C. v. Dawson (1968),[3] "going armed with unusual and dangerous weapons to the terror of the people" is a misdemeanor at common-law. This offense was later incorporated in the statute of Northhampton of 2 Edw. III, ch. 3. (Riding or Going Armed Act 1328 c. 3). (See: List of Acts of the Parliament of England to 1601). Both of these laws continue in U. S. unless repealed or superceded." Under common law, bearing arms is an offence not a right and this was confirmed by the Statute of Northampton. TFD (talk) 02:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Please read what I referenced above: Specifically, in Rex v. Knight[20] the accused had been charged with violating the Statute of Northampton by "walk[ing] about the streets armed with guns, and go[ing] into the church of St. Michael, in Bristol, in the time of divine service, with a gun, to terrify the King's subjects."[21] Under the judge's instructions, that an essential element of the crime of violating the Statute of Northampton (p.795)was "go[ing] armed to terrify the King's subjects,"[22] the jury acquitted the accused.[23] The court further noted that the Statute of Northampton was "but an affirmance" of the common law.!96.237.120.38 (talk) 02:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
What the court meant by "the Statute of Northampton was "but an affirmance" of the common law" was that it was an offense under the common law to carry weapons, and this law against carrying arms was codified under the Statute of Northampton. That should be clear enough and please stop presenting obscure objections. TFD (talk) 03:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely NOT. If it was an offense to simply carry weapons the accused would have been found guilty and fined or imprisoned (whatever the punishement was). He was instead ACQUITTED. The court therefore stated that it was OK for him to go around armed. Under "common law" it was perfectly legal to carry weapons, even unusual weapons, as long as it was not for "the terror of the people" .96.237.120.38 (talk) 12:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Just relying on the excerpts posted above, I don't think TFD's extrapolation is really all that correct, nor, regardless of my opinion, is any of that supported by third party reliable sources. Let's not debate this here like that, but talk about sources we find and evaluate those. Shadowjams (talk) 06:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


I don't see how anyone can claim that Blackstone is anything other than a secondary source. He is not a source of law!--Hauskalainen (talk) 05:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Blackstone was perhaps at one point a source of law, but yeah, this is ridiculous. No, he's hardly a primary source here, and he's certainly a valid, and reliable, secondary source. I imagine 10 minutes on lexis will find you dozens of articles about pre-English Bill of Rights common law self-defense and right to bear arms articles. I don't have anything to back this up, but I wonder if the "bear arms" and "keep arms" language was as specific in the 17th century as it was at the time of the constitution, or even later, at the time of the 14th amendment. But 96... it's worth doing a little bit of that research instead of just making those arguments. This isn't the place to have the debate, let's use this to bring forth some sources and make the article better. Shadowjams (talk) 05:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Hauskalainen, Shadowjames, are you aware that since Blackstone wrote his Commentaries a quarter of a millenium ago that other writers have written about the law? Are you aware that after 250 years that there have been legal precedents that have altered the common law? If either of you become "attorneys" may I suggest that you familiarize yourself with judgments made within the last 250 years because more recent precedents may have changed the law. BTW, Soloman v. Soloman, Carlyle vs. Carbolic Smoke Bomb, Roe V. Wade, and many other important cases have been decided within the last 250 years. Do you know what the terms common law and case law mean? TFD (talk) 06:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Don't be rude. I've discussed with you before, and I thought we had a mutual respect. Is your point that Blackstone's irrelevant on the pre 1689 sources because he wrote after that? That's a valid argument, I was just suggesting his commentaries are hardly primary sources. In fact, that he wrote after the fact only supports that. I don't sense a substantive disagreement on this point. Shadowjams (talk) 06:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Shadowjams:You wrote Is your point that Blackstone's irrelevant on the pre 1689 sources because he wrote after that? That's a valid argument How can someone write about something BEFORE it happens?96.237.120.38 (talk) 12:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I think Carbolic Smoke is still good law :) Shadowjams (talk) 06:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
My point is that if we discuss Blackstone's views, we should use modern scholars. What is the problem? if no modern scholars share our view of Blackstone then our view is wrong. If our view of Blackstone is correct, then some scholars will support it. That is the same with any subject. We use the latest literature, not something that is 200 years old. TFD (talk) 06:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Aside from the point that Carbolic Smoke Ball is still good law, I agree with you, and that's a valid point. Those ideas need to be backed up with modern commentary (certainly modern meaning post 1780s), but let's also not excise Blackstone from the article either. Shadowjams (talk) 06:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Fortunately, there is plenty of modern scholarly analysis of those 250 year old Blackstone writings. (Even reading modern legal treatises can be a challenge, but when written in antiquated English, it can be tricky.) The problem here in the past with the use of Blackstone was that editors here were tending to make selective quotes editorializing, being interpretive, to advance their personal POVs. If we stick closer to what the third party secondary sourcing says about Blackstone and its meaning to the 2A we should be able to figure this out and keep WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. SaltyBoatr get wet 13:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Selective Blindness

SB- Above you wrote Even pistols remain to be illegal everywhere in DC including inside the home. You still must keep your handgun inoperable and locked or disassembled within your home at all times,,

The Washington Post states otherwise on both counts http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/03/17/ST2008031702809.html?sid=ST2008031702809

The city has already repealed a ban on semiautomatic pistols, he said, and allows residents to keep loaded guns in their homes. 96.237.120.38 (talk) 23:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

That article is about a law proposed by Congress, not about what Heller says about the Constitutionality of gun control. What I wrote about the regulation of pistols being Constitutional is relative to the Heller ruling, not laws that Congress might enact. The situation was that the Heller allowed the regulation of high capacity handguns like automatic loading pistols. The District sought to regulate these pistols, and when some members of the US Congress learned this they sought to pass a law overriding the District Council, and the District reacted to the political threat from Congress by loosening their gun control more than Heller would have required per the Constitutional requirement. That article is a bit vague about the exact specifics of the current DC gun law. Do you know of a good source that describes the exact condition of the DC gun law now? I would like to learn more that I can glean from that newspaper article. SaltyBoatr get wet 13:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
SB- You wrote Even pistols remain to be illegal everywhere in DC including inside the home. You still must keep your handgun inoperable and locked or disassembled within your home at all times The Washington Post states otherwise on both counts.96.237.120.38 (talk) 14:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I apologize for imprecise and incorrect wording. I concede your point. Sorry. You are right. I hope you feel better now. You won. And, you seem more concerned with battling me personally than improving this article.
That said: The topic should not drift away from the Second Amendment. My point, which I wrote incorrectly, remains true. In this post-Heller era per the Supreme Court nearly every conceivable gun control regulation is constitutional, including banning of semi-automatic pistols. This new found constitutionality hinges on the words "permissible" (see Heller page 63) and the words "presumptively lawful regulatory measures" (see Heller page 56). Since the Heller ruling, scores of court cases challenging gun control laws have been heard in the last two years and not one has been overturned on Second Amendment grounds. Typically these courts have pointed to page 56 "presumptively lawful regulatory measures" when ruling against the plaintiff who typically was arguing for "individual rights". See this UCLA Law Review article[4] examining the gun control court rulings in the post-Heller period for confirmation of this fact. This article seems to give a undue emphasis on the words "individual rights" from the Heller ruling, and based on the events of the last two years[5], the operative words from Heller have been "presumptively lawful regulatory measures". We should correct this POV balance issue in the article. SaltyBoatr get wet 15:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I am interested in squashing what seems a never ending distortion of facts on your part.96.237.120.38 (talk) 18:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Me to. I do not want to get my facts wrong. Please help me get my fact right. The best way to do this is to tell me what reliable sources I should be reading. Did you get a chance to read that UCLA Law Review article[6] which examines the court rulings that have been issued post-Heller? It is an interesting read because it describes the evolution of the court interpretation (and political interpretation) of the Second Amendment during these last two years. This encyclopedia article could be improved by giving coverage to this modern evolution in the legal interpretation of the 2A. SaltyBoatr get wet 19:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you should read one of those cases where the Supreme Court states that "the plain meaning of the law IS the law".96.237.120.38 (talk) 13:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I sounds like you may have read that UCLA Law Review article, because it has a similar criticism. The author questions the Supreme Court's "plain meaning of the law" relative to the fact that the Heller ruling protects only self protection within the home, and excludes the security of self protection in public. (see page 1569) "The amendment says 'security of a free state' not 'security of a free home'." Scalia's viewpoint of the 2A as written Heller is the "plain meaning": security of a free home . Selective blindness, indeed. SaltyBoatr get wet 14:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Will wonders never cease. We agree that Heller did not go far enough.96.237.120.38 (talk) 19:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

Gradually working our way through the steps of dispute resolution.

1 Avoiding disputes 1.1 Focus on content 1.2 Stay cool 1.3 Discuss with the other party

2 Resolving disputes 2.1 Sensitive and privacy-related issues

2.2 Editor assistance

2.3 Ask for a third opinion

2.4 Ask about the subject

2.5 Ask about a policy

2.6 Ask for help at a relevant noticeboard

2.7 For incivility

2.8 Request a comment

2.9 Informal mediation

2.10 Formal mediation

  • Information mediation was refused[24]. It seems the next step is to try formal mediation. What do other editors think? Are the parties to the dispute willing to participate in format mediation? SaltyBoatr get wet 16:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
    • The mediator's offer was rejected because the mediator had no editing history. Who was this guy? Your alter-ego? Also I did not think that we had exausted all means to resolve the dispute. I had not raised my main complaint (that you were structuting the article to tell one version of history when in fact this is a recent revisionist view which has not had wide acceptance by the academic community and the other, more traditional view should have much greater weight than this revisionist one and which the article (because of the way it has been edited in the past and which I am now trying to correct) had completed expunged this more traditional view of history completely. Hauskalainen (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

2.11 Conduct a survey

3 If the situation is urgent

4 Last resort: Arbitration

You are attacking this issue with lightening speed Salty. I cannot even keep up with the flow on these pages let alone chase the same issues at other places. I do not agree with the way that you have described the problem. In many cases you have completely changed the nature of the dispute.--Hauskalainen (talk) 05:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I decline to participate in dispute resolution with SaltyBoatr. Checking the dispute form and finding my name on it, already with an allegations of IP hopping, I decline to get involved in a shit tossing contest.71.184.184.238 (talk) 18:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

A Developing right?

I have told you what the problem was with the way the history section was written and that is very plain. It is that it is structured to tell the Malcolm "story" of a "developing right", beginning (presumably) with zero rights and culminating in the Second Amendment which grants a right to all Americans. The problem us that this is highly POV. It does not even reflect the considered opinion of the Supreme Court which more than a hundred years ago (I think) decided that the Second Amendment did not create a new right but just a new protection against the Federal government interfering to remove or infringe an existing right. And the fact the Supreme Court judges themselves accepted that the right is an ancient one and the parallel in the English Bill of Rights was a similar PROTECTION of an existing right (for protestants) and not a grant of rights. The article as I edited today conveys right up front, your view, shared with Malcolm, that the right developed. But it also gives the alternative view, which we have to respect, (and with it the evidence) that the Bill of Rights was an attempt to preserve existing rights and so too with the Second Amendment. What I want to know is what is wrong with that presentation? It gives one view and it gives the other. It does not lend more weight to one over the other and I even removed text which you construed as OR (though I don't actually think it was).

The truth about collective self defense is that it has been going in in time immemorial. Just because we see written references somewhere to it (whether from the time of modern English Law - i.e. the first millennium CE onwards, or from sources even earlier than that) does NOT mean that habit of collective defense started then. All those motte-and-bailey castles strung across England going back more than a thousand years are indications that communities had well established collective defenses. The stories told by Bede of the early Saxons, the Danes, and the continual battles between the Britons and the Picts and the Celts show that early English history was fraught with battles that were certainly not faught without arms. It is, frankly, ridiculous for you to claim that they were (as they must of been had arming the community been "unlawful")-. You have continually ignored the fact that that all things are lawful until they are made unlawful. That nobody has given me a right to keep milk in the fridge does not mean that I do not have the right. That is the ludicrous consequence of your argument that I must somehow deliver a source showing that keeping a knife or a sword handy for defence) was, in the tenth century, lawful. Which is why I am not playing games with you. If you think it was UNLAWFUL then in fact the obligation is on you to show that it WAS. NOT the other way around. Are you prepared for us to take this element of our dispute to WP:NOR? I argue that obligation is on YOU to show it was UNLAWFUL not on me to show it was LAWFUL. --Hauskalainen (talk) 18:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

He explains it in Chapter II (p. 19) by claiming the origins are in ancient Germanic tribes for whom arms bearing was a right and a duty of free men. This right apparently continued under common law and was recognized by the Laws of Cnut, and confirmed by Edward Coke and Blackstone. He quotes Coke, ""the laws permit the taking up of arms against armed persons". Unfortunately, he does not go into great detail about this, but provides the only RS I could find. Hauskalainen, we have to stay with reliable sources. Incidentally, the Bill of Rights 1689 was an imperial law, and therefore applied to the American colonies and continued as law after independance, although of course it no longer placed a restriction on legislatures. Also, the discussion is not whether bearing or keeping arms was lawful, but that it was a right, which requires sources. TFD (talk) 19:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is a link to Coke's Institutes, where he states, "And yet in some case a man may not onely use force and aremes, but assemble company also". (Cramer seems to be disingenuous by quoting only part of the passage. The common law right described by Coke only extended to defending oneself in one's own house.) TFD (talk) 02:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

"Right" has about a dozen different meanings, and so any use of the word is ambiguous. Generally, a right in the US constitution is an enumerated, explicit prohibition against the government prohibiting. It sounds like the farther back situation that you are discussing is where the societal norms were to consider it not allowable for the government to ban personal ownership/use of firearms, or to prohibit one from storing milk in the fridge, or to prohibit people with the name Weatherby from walking on the street. It is gaming the Wikipedia system to require references that state such things explicitly. North8000 (talk) 03:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no doubt that the right protected by the Second Amendment is a "legal right". And gaming the system means using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith. So I do not understand what you mean. TFD (talk) 04:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I have not analyzed the above zillion words well enough to make the strong statement that it happening here. But I was thinking about it more with regards to the discussion of rights pre-dating the constitution. There are some statements that an objective person would accept as true that are not wp:ver sourcable, e.g. "Barack Obama has never climbed the mountain K2". The majority of statements in Wikipedia are not directly sourced per wp:ver. If a person would want to knock out or keep out one of these statements ostensibly strictly on sourcing grounds, in reality they have another motive, and I would call such an action "gaming the system". North8000 (talk) 12:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
To North8000: A "protected right" in the US constitution is an enumerated, explicit prohibition against the government prohibiting. A "right" includes the primary rights of life, liberty, and property, and includes all lesser rights needed to keep those 3 rights intact. It is impossible to enumerate all these "lesser" rights and the 9th Amendment to the Bill of Rights covers protects them as follows The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.120.38 (talk) 12:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I think that I fully agree with you, except to note that it common practice to use the word "right" to refer to both of those, and so, in practice, those are 2 of the definitions of that word. North8000 (talk) 12:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I really doubt that we will ever agree to anything when we continue this discussion of "I believe this". Can we bring this talk page to discussions of what we read in reliable secondary sourcing giving coverage of the English history as it relates to the Second Amendment. Then, can we discuss what we are reading? Let's stop discussing what I believe, it the goal is improving the article, it isn't working! SaltyBoatr get wet 15:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
North8000, this discussion thread is about "English History". Obviously that means reading what modern scholars say about the right to keep and bear arms as it existed in England. These scholars have written about common law, statute and the opinions of legal scholars, including Edward Coke and William Blackstone, whose works were and still are used to interpret the law. Whether or not the Second Amendment protects a legal right does not affect the section about English history. TFD (talk) 17:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
You are right. I just used the 2nd as example to make my point about the many definitions of the word thus it's ambiguity. North8000 (talk) 17:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
You should read the article on natural and legal rights. TFD (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll do that. North8000 (talk) 19:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I would hate to think that this is going to boil down to an argument about the very shady lines about what constitutes Rights and what type of right the English had. There is in practice little difference from the personal point of whether the right to have a weapon or a defensive device is a Natural Right, a Constitutional Right or a right of claim. We have evidence that people were armed with knives and swords and long bows so where is the evidence that they had no right to use these? We can see clear evidence that Kings tried to assert authority through magistrates to resolve disputes peaceably and that the citizenry were expected to resolve disputes in this way rather than resorting to violence. That custom remains the same in our modern society. But where is Salty's evidence that the British had no liberty to have arms to protect themselves in the ultimate extreme? The answer is that he has nothing except vague notions emanating from those wishing us to swallow another modern myth based on very little evidence. If you read the early English Histories they are full of conflicts between various regional kingdoms (powerful local families and their allies) which resulted in many violent raids one upon the other, especially in the areas of regional differences (English vs Welsh, Cumbrian kings vs the Scottish Kings, those under Danelaw and those under West Saxon Law. England was not a land of peace loving, tree hugging farmers. Maybe they would have liked to have been but the reality is that they were all of a mixed genetic and linguistic heritage and were constantly warring.

What is important is that it is incumbent on SaltyBoatr, if he wishes to continue to construct a myth that the English had no rights (by which I mean no liberty) to have arms for their self or collective defence in the period before the twelfth century, is to give us a clear reference which shows when and how that liberty was lost. --Hauskalainen (talk) 23:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it equally incumbent upon you to prove that such a liberty did exist? The evidence either way is nebulous. Need we address this issue in the article?
No sources claim that the right to bear arms is a natural right. Also, could you please stick to reliable sources. Since articles can only be based on reliable sources, this lengthy discussion is pointless. TFD (talk) 12:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
The right to defend yourself is a natural right, and the right to arms is a right derived from that natural right. You cannot defend yourself unless you have in your possession weapons equal in power to those available to criminals. In this day and age that means guns. Depending on how far back you go, the weapons could be bows, spears, swords, and for Ugh the Caveman, clubs. The word criminals includes criminals in government who would use their power over the police and military, to in effect enslave you.96.237.120.38 (talk) 17:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
A definition problem again. One of the many working definitions of "right" is that which is not legally prohibited. In the beginning, this was everything. Under this definition, one would have to establish that the right was taken show in order to claim it did not exist. North8000 (talk) 13:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Please provide a source that that definition was ever used in law. TFD (talk) 14:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I am with TFD on this. I cannot follow the premise shown above by Hauskalaninen. Are we supposed to read and understand the Instituta Cnuti? Seriously? Hauskalainen is plainly engaged in original research. Stop it! Show us third party reliable sourcing that makes your point. Give us a chance to verify this Second Amendment theory from the Instituta Cnuti in third party reliable sourcing. Don't tell us what the sourcing says, just identify your sourcing and let us read it ourselves. SaltyBoatr get wet 16:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Hauskalainen @SaltyBoatr and @The Four Deuces. Neither of you accepts it as a natural right? SCOTUS thinks it was and it cites Blackstone and others for this.

By the time of the founding, the right to have arms had become fundamental for English subjects. [See Malcolm 122–134]. Blackstone, whose works, we have said, “constituted the preeminent authority on English law for the founding generation,” [Alden v. Maine, 527 U. S. 706, 715 (1999)], cited the arms provision of the Bill of Rights as one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen.[See 1 Black-stone 136, 139–140 (1765)999. 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,” [id., at 139], and “the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence,”[id., at 140;see also 3 id., at 2–4 (1768)]. Other contemporary authorities concurred. [See G. Sharp, Tracts, Concerning the Ancient and Only True Legal Means of National Defence, by a Free Militia 17–18, 27 (3d ed. 1782); 2 J. de Lolme, The Rise and Progress of the English Constitution 886–887 (1784) (A. Stephens ed. 1838); W. Blizard, Desultory Reflections on Police 59–60 (1785)]. Thus, the right secured in 1689 as a result of the Stuarts’ abuses was by the time of the founding understood to be an individual right protecting against both public and private violence

(from http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf page 21)

What makes you think that you are right and the majority on the Supreme Court are wrong?--Hauskalainen (talk) 00:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Nowhere in the Supreme Court decision or in the text you quote does it say that the right is a "natural right". Could you please look that term up and stop using it wrongly. Secondly, the reference you provide to "the right secured in 1689" is evidence that the right did not exist before 1689. TFD (talk) 00:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Now you are playing WP:Game. The Supreme Court clearly quotes from 3 sources. Each of those sources says these things. I am not using the term wrongly. It is not right to say the right did not exist before 1689. It said it was SECURED in 1689. You cannot secure something which did not previously exist. The security was the constitional position that the King had no right to disarm proestant as he had previously done so. The Second Amendment only provides that the Federal Government shall not infringe the right of the people to have arms. It's about restrictions on the Federal government and not the grant of a new right to keep and bear arms. That right came from the common law (of which natural law is a part) and is subject to law set down by the States just as the right in English law can be modified in parliament. --Hauskalainen (talk) 01:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Nowhere in DC Heller do the judges say that there is a "natural right" to keep and bear arms. And you cannot secure something that you already possess. (E.g., when you enter into a contract you secure the right to take possession of goods or services which may not yet have been manufactured or performed.) Please look up these terms. Also, please stop making accusations. TFD (talk) 02:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm on the side of TFD and Salty here. Recognize too that those two, in my estimation, have very opposing political views on this issue (I could be wrong; that's my impression though). That said, Heller and again McDonald are relatively narrow, and it's a stretch to say that a modern court in a 1-justice majority is going to rely on a natural rights argument, particularly when that argument has been, since at least the 1940s, associated with "liberal" judges. Natural rights arguments have a role in this article, they're certainly relevant to any of the fundamental liberties, but it's a mistake to confound those natural rights with contemporary Supreme Court decisions, which are inherently original research/synthesis. Shadowjams (talk) 10:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Answering Hauskalainen's question of 00:29 - We have discussed this same question several times now. Could you stop it with the delay game please? Get to work addressing my specific questions about the text you inserted into the article. Stop delaying. If you fail to reply, I will conclude shortly that you choose not to reply and I'll proceed to make edits deleting your problematic text.
The problem with your reliance on dicta in Heller is that there is much credible criticism[25][26][27][28][29] of the veracity of Scalia's dicta in Heller, which raises a red flag. If your "ancient 'natural right' in English history" thesis is sound, you should be easily be capable of finding confirmation in third party reliable sourcing, and not need to search out confirmation in primary court rulings. And, at most, Scalia's dicta in that primary court ruling is one opinion, and we still need to include not just your favorite POV, but we must fairly and neutrally include all significant POV's seen in reliable sourcing. SaltyBoatr get wet 13:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces We do not need the judges to say this in their judgement. I am using the judges to show that these are reliable sources. What the sources say is what they say, and that is that the right was regarded as a natural one.--Hauskalainen (talk) 06:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
SB continues his tried and true BS yet again. One of the above criticism is not a criticism of Scalia but a criticism of the dissent to Heller which obviously Scalia had nothing to do with.71.184.184.238 (talk) 15:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
My comments on those criticisms can be found here

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Lund_seems_to_be_suffering_some_sort_of_schizophrenia71.184.184.238 (talk) 15:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

@SaltyBoatr It would be helpful if you could bring your complaints about the text in the English history section here. I am not going to keep copying them over from the sandbox. I've done it enough times already. Now its your turn. You have had 5 days to do so since you had the article protected. If you want them discussed, bring the issues you have to the "Issues with the English History" section and number them in the series I have established. If you just want references for things that have been in the article for a long time then you can go back and add these yourself when the protection is lifted. I am not your nurse maid (though sometimes it fells like I am). If you think there are controversial statements that were NOT in the previous versions before my recent edits I'll be glad to get you a citation. If I have not done that by the time the protection is lifted,, just put a citation request into the article space at the appropriate point. Thank you for listing all those "credible criticism" articles re Heller. I have not read them all but the first one which I have read seems to support much of what I have been saying!! If you think that there are elements in these articles which dispute the presumption that the right to arms existed BEFORE the Bil of Rights then I think you must point out where this is said. As I read the first article you presented to us it seems to support my position and not yours. --Hauskalainen (talk) 06:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
No need. Please use the English history sandbox to see where citations are needed in your proposed text. I am not reassured by your statement "I'll be glad to get you a citation." Rather than a promise to do it in the future, you should just get the citations we have asked for now. Be aware, that per policy, the text which you have inserted that lacks verification can (and will) be removed after the page lock lifts. Also, I believe that should you revert to reinsert text that lacks citation, that will be considered to be disruptive editing. The purpose of this week of page protection is to allow us to work things out on the talk page, and stalling is a bad idea. Insert the requested citations now, or expect that the text will be removed. Neither should we be using this talk page to discuss your "issues" or "myths". It shouldn't take 100,000 words of talk to provide citations for ten sentences. Provide the requested[30] citations now! SaltyBoatr get wet 14:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Back to the same old BS by SB! 71.184.184.238 (talk) 14:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

McDonald decision

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment is incorporated (made applicable to the States) via the Fourteenth Amendment. 4 Justices vote for incorporation via the Due Process Clause, while Justice Thomas voted to do it through the Privileges or Immunities Clause; the 4 dissenters voted against incorporation.

The article needs to be updated, but first we should read the decision so we update it correctly. SMP0328. (talk) 14:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

No. We should be using reliable secondary sources. Directly reading the decision is using primary sources. SaltyBoatr get wet 14:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Did I say "only"? We should read the McDonald opinions, in addition to using reliable sources, before updating the article. I'm sure everyone, other than you, understood my meaning in the original comment. SMP0328. (talk) 14:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I apologize. Sometimes I have a hard time understanding what you write. What did you mean when you wrote: "we should read the decision so we update it correctly"? SaltyBoatr get wet 15:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
We should read the opinions so we can provide exact citations when referring to any part of any of those opinions. Of course, any such citations will be provided together with reliable secondary sources. SMP0328. (talk) 15:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
The Supreme Court violated WP:NOR and WP:NPOV and their opinion will not be permitted here until corrected by sources found to be reliable by all editors. In the meanwhile this article is a catastrophe. Go start reading at the top and tell me how far you have to go before you even find what the Second Amendment means. - McOrion (talk) 16:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I believe that wikipedia must bow to the Supreme Court on a question of law and not the other way round.96.237.120.38 (talk) 17:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I vote McOrion goes to Washington to order the Supreme Court to change its decision, so that it is in accord with wiki policies. 96.237.120.38 (talk) 18:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Some press accounts of the outcome of the Bilski patent case have been laughably wrong to this point. Secondary sources definitely require a once-over. However, I would like to point out that the syllabus of the case at the beginning is a secondary source. It is not written by the Justices, but is the Court Reporter's own summary of what the Justices wrote, prepended to the actual text of the case. bd2412 T 17:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
McOrion, the Supreme Court is not bound by Wiki-policy and did cite secondary sources in its opinion. SMP0328. (talk) 17:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Wiki allows use of primary sources A primary source may only be used to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge.96.237.120.38 (talk) 18:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

On legal articles it looks like wiki policy prefers primary sources over secondary sources. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Secondary_sources Law In the legal field, source classification is important because the persuasiveness of a source usually depends upon its history. Primary sources may include cases, constitutions, statutes, administrative regulations, and other sources of binding legal authority, while secondary legal sources may include books, articles, and encyclopedias.[17] Legal writers usually prefer to cite primary sources because only primary sources are authoritative and precedential, while secondary sources are only persuasive at best.[18]96.237.120.38 (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
In retrospect, for an article on the Second Amendment, the only primary source is the Second Amendment; any court decision explaining the underlying meaning of the Amendment would be a secondary source. Of course, the decision in McDonald would be a primary source for the article, McDonald v. Chicago. bd2412 T 19:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
"Legal writers usually prefer to cite primary sources...." Exactly. We are not legal writers. TFD (talk) 20:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
If you are writing about a legal issue, you are a legal writer.96.237.120.38 (talk) 20:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
That quote[31] is taken from a book written to help legal scholars in academic writing. It is not a guide for writing tertiary sources. We are editors, not writers. TFD (talk) 21:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Let's be honest with each other. It seems that many editors around here favor quoting snippets from the obiter dictum of court rulings because they find it useful to advance the agenda of their personal ideology. That gets it backwards and would violate WP:NPOV. The policy here is to read all the sourcing (including that with which we disagree), then we are to write an article that matches the sourcing. SaltyBoatr get wet 21:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Let's be honest with each other. It seems that at least one editor favors quoting from alleged historians because they find it useful to advance the agenda of their personal ideology. That gets it backwards and would violate WP:NPOV. The policy here is to read all the sourcing (including that with which we disagree), then we are to write an article that matches the sourcing. 71.184.184.238 (talk) 14:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. The "exception" for primary sources as it's meant in those guidelines is for obvious stuff, like "the court voted x-x" or "Alito joined the majority", or "the court remanded". Things like that. Those are fine. It's not within guidelines to start drawing conclusions from an opinion, or worse yet, from a series of opinions. That's what law review articles are for, and if you want to be a legal writer and write a law review article, say hello to the library, goodbye to the sun, and we'll see you in 3 months. Shadowjams (talk) 22:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

while all this bickering continues, the article continues to state that 'a decision is expected soon', when a decision has already been rendered. rather than arguing nuances of reliability, a primary news source should certainly suffice to bring the article current. may i suggest http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703964104575334701513109426.html ? (i leave it to others, as i'm long retired from editing this article, or engaging in the talk page circle-jerk). happy trails. Anastrophe (talk) 00:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, Anastrophe, if everybody abandoned the "circle-jerk" then we would be left with only one user jerking the article alone. P.S. I have to appreciate the sublime humor behind the fact that on the day of the most definitive court ruling in the history of the second amendment, the article here is locked behind another "crocodile tears" lock. It couldn't be more fitting if it had been planned. - McOrion (talk) 02:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Haha... It's hardly "bickering", rather than uncontroversial applications of policy being discussed here. There's no hurry. Let's incorporate the obvious facts into the articles (seem to have been done quite well) and in time the scholarly output (trust me, it will be quick) will fill in the gaps. I always love the "I left the encyclopedia..." style talk page edits. If you're interested in the topic, responsible, and still here, then help, let's quit this meta debate bullshit. Shadowjams (talk) 09:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
If you want to see/source the wording of the amendment on the constitution, you look at / source the constitution, you don't go to a newspaper for it's opinion on what the wording is. Any rule that someone says says otherwise is etither faulty, or being misapplied. It is beyond a reliable source, it is by definition correct. Ditto for the Supreme Court's on it's meaning. North8000 (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I fully understand your point, but actually no, we don't go directly to the source. I said above that we do if that involves very basic facts, but Supreme Court decisions are hardly self explanatory. To think otherwise is a naive understanding of how case law works. Multiply that by the fact that a number of decisions, this one included, have a majority not agreeing on the precise way to reach the same conclusion. It's not sufficient to use primary sources and that's why we have policy about that. Shadowjams (talk) 20:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
The "meaning" of a Supreme Court opinion depends on interpretation of the Ratio decidendi versus the Obiter dictum. People spend big bucks and many years learning at expensive law schools, and they still don't agree about how to interpret this! It is almost always against policy here for editors around here to attempt to directly interpret the meaning of dicta in court rulings. The policy here is descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge. Needing a law school education is considered 'specialist knowledge', I think. Fortunately, this is not a problem for us because there is sooooo much excellent secondary sourcing available for the 2A topic. It is typically easy to find the info you want by using secondary sourcing as opposed to directly reading the court document. SaltyBoatr get wet 20:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Secondary sources which include alleged historians who couldn't find their ass with two hands, directions, a map, a gps and explicit instuctions.71.184.184.238 (talk) 14:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Usmc85, 29 June 2010

{{editprotected}} This section needs updating as of today due to another court ruling by the Supreme Court.


MCDONALD ET AL. v. CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS. Supreme Court Decision today: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf which seems to verify the Second Amendment to the US Constitution does give individuals the right to bear arms.

[1]

Usmc85 (talk) 05:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)USMC85 Usmc85 (talk) 05:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

This looks like a good idea, but specific text supported by consensus of editors here (or at least unlikely to be opposed) is necessary before the article can be updated. This edit takes care of saying that the ruling is out now. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
That's a tricky criteria to use in this case. From the folks who did not like the ruling and its significance, and wish it wasn't so, accurate and on-target writing is the text most likely to be opposed. North8000 (talk) 10:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
The wording should more closely match the specific effect of the court ruling, which like Heller "...gives individuals the right to have handguns in the home for self defense." SaltyBoatr get wet 13:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Heller does not "give" anything. At best it upholds the pre existing right to arms.71.184.184.238 (talk) 14:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
following the pattern of this article, how bout we just give the main meaning and concept an indirect sentence or two, and then give undue weight to discussing that it wasn't a unanimous opinion, discussing the dissenting minority opinion as much as the majority opinion. And then lots of undue weight coverage with a spin towards saying it has minimal relevance. Maybe use wiki-lawyering to keep the main concepts from getting in very much, and to give the above undue weight items lots of coverage. North8000 (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Can someone at least update the last sentence of the lead. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done by AliveFreeHappy. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Let's just read the most reliable sourcing that discusses the ruling, and fairly represent what we read into the article. The dust might need to settle a bit, as I noticed that many of the news articles yesterday seemed shallow and hastily prepared. There should be some more in depth articles coming up, watch SCOTUSblog and some of the University Law Reviews. This whole issue is two years old now, with McDonald being an extension of the line of thought first seen in Heller. I found yesterday's Newshour interview between Paul Helmke (Brady) and Wayne LaPierre (NRA) transcript here to be particularly revealing. The commentator began with the assumption that LaPierre would see the ruling as "right" and Helmke would see the ruling as "wrong", but in the discussion that followed the reactions from Helmke and LaPierre seemed just the reverse! Clearly both these experts see that there will be a flurry of lawsuits this coming year, and they both agree that the lawsuits will center on the "presumptively lawful" exemption seen both in Heller and in McDonald. And, both those experts were well aware of the results of the scores Heller challenges which already have worked through the courts. LaPierre could see they would have to fight very hard, they have an up hill fight, as he put it: "a lot of work ahead". And, Helmke said (based on the experience seen with Heller) that: "they're going to lose most of those lawsuits". Bottom line after the dust settles is that we are seeing here that the SCOTUS with Heller and McDonald has protected handguns for self defense in the home, and has validated as "presumptively lawful" (essentially all) other gun control regulations as not being in violation of the Second Amendment. One law professor describes it as "...the Supreme Court believes that almost all gun control measures on the books today are perfectly legal", and LaPierre and Helmke both know this. SaltyBoatr get wet 14:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
That professor is an idiot since the Chicago laws are still on the books and based on the ruling, those "still on the books" laws will get deep-sixed.71.184.184.238 (talk) 18:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

McDonald as it pertains to the ancient English History section

Plainly, the McDonald court ruling is going to give fodder to this talk page debate over what the reliable sourcing says about the "true view" of English History behind the Second Amendment. (Or the 'myth'.) Obviously, it is early to say, but here is an analysis at SCOTUSblog[32] which has two themes. 1)There is tension between POV's as to the "self-defense" rational and 2) There is disagreement about timelines. Our 2A article must walk a neutral path, and present all significant POV's seen in reliable sourcing fairly. For instance, one POV places a greater emphasis on the "self-defense" rational than another POV. And, the bigger deal here, the point #2 describes how perceptions of the meaning of the 2A have evolved over the 220 year history of this country. The perception of the 2A during Reconstruction was entirely different than the modern interpretation. While some may argue that the true meaning of the 2A has been what they deem today to be the "original meaning", we see in this paper that another significant viewpoint is that the popular meaning has been changing. The conclusion of the SCOTUSblog article casts doubt on the value of law office history as being useful to academic historians. Our challenge is to fairly write these disparate ideas seen in these various sources into the article. SaltyBoatr get wet 17:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Natural right

One editor continues to claim that the right to keep and bear arms is a natural right. Could they please provide a source for this. No source or judgment I have read describes it as a natural right. TFD (talk) 07:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Rights derived from natural rights are themselves natural rights. Granted rights derived from granted rights are themselves granted rights. Two examples. The right to keep and bear arms is derived from the right to defend yourself. The right to defend yourself is a natural right, so the right to arms is a natural right. The right to food stamps on the other hand is a granted right. The right to spend your food stamp money is derived from the the granted right to food stamps and is therefore itself a granted right.
Snippets from them the McDonald opinion that may help understand the difference between defending yourself (a right you always have) and getting food stamps (a right based on income and also a right that did not exist prior to the passage of the food stamp laws).
It has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amend-ments, codified a pre-existing right
Lysander Spooner championed the popular abolitionist argument that slavery was inconsistent with constitutional principles, citing as evidence the fact that it deprived black Americans of the “natural right of all men‘to keep and bear arms’ for their personal defence,” which he believed the Constitution “prohibit[ed] both Congress and the State governments from infringing.” L. Spooner,The Unconstitutionality of Slavery
Heller’s conclusion that “individual self-defense” was “the central component” of the Second Amendment’s right “to keep and bear Arms” rested upon its view that the Amendment “codified a pre-existing right” that had “nothing whatever to do with service in a militia71.184.184.238 (talk) 14:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
If you accept that natural = fundamental then also see the following quote - Please note that citations have been removed for clarity
Heller explored the right’s origins, noting that the 1689 English Bill of Rights explicitly protected a right to keep arms for self-defense, and that by 1765, Blackstone was able to assert that the right to keep and bear arms was “one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen,”. Blackstone’s assessment was shared by the American colonists. As we noted in Heller, King George III’s attempt to disarm the colonists in the 1760’s and 1770’s “provoked polemical reactions by Americans invoking their rights as Englishmen to keep arms.” The right to keep and bear arms was considered no less fundamental by those who drafted and ratified the Bill of Rights. “During the 1788 ratification debates, the fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia was pervasive in Anti federalist rhetoric.71.184.184.238 (talk) 14:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
If you accept that unalienable = natural then the following from the Declaration of Independence should also be of help
'"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.71.184.184.238 (talk) 14:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hauskalainen @ The Four Deuces I don't understand why you have made a new section for this when we have been discussing it earlier. Its not true that we have no sources for this. I have given you some already but you imply that you don't like them. But we have in addition Sir William Blackstone himself, the prominent jurist of his day who talked about the right to have arms being a "natural right of resistance and self-preservation",

The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.[2]

This was repeated by W.Duer in "Outlines of the Constitutional Jurisprudence of the United States" pp 31–32 (1833)" (already cited to you in the previous section)

Then we have the Bill of Rights itself which says

And thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, pursuant to their respective letters and elections, being now assembled in a full and free representative of this nation, taking into their most serious consideration the best means for attaining the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties declare... that the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;

Admittedly this one does not explain the nature of these "ancient rights and liberties" but they are widely believed to be natural rights because they are not a right granted at any previous time in history. If your view is that the rights and liberties came along with the duties laid down in law then I must tell you that that is an entirely POV position and not supported by any contemporary document... it seems to have begun with Malcolm's book and has no basis in historical fact.--Hauskalainen (talk) 14:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Neither of those sources says that it is a "natural right". Blackstone calls it an auxiliary right and the Lords call it an ancient right. Please find a source that calls it a natural right or stop claiming that it is one. Lysander Spooner's reference (from 1860!) to "the natural right" is not persuasive. Your argument, "Rights derived from natural rights are themselves natural right" is Sythesis. Please find a reliable source that calls them "natural rights". Your comment, "they are widely believed to be natural rights because they are not a right granted at any previous time in history" is false, not supported by sources. As for your statement, "your view is that...", I have no idea what you are talking about. When did I ever say that? I have not presented any views other than that we follow reliable sources. BTW I created this section because you keep claiming that they are natural rights. Could you please read up about what the term "natural rights" means so we can stop this unneccessary discussion. TFD (talk) 15:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
The right to self defense is an "ancient right" going all the way back to Ugh the caveman. It is a "natural right because nobody gives it you. It is an "unalienable" right because no one can take it away from you, and lastly, it is a "fundamental" right because if it wasn't someone would KILL YOU! 71.184.184.238 (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
and it is an "auxiliary" right because it is derived from the primary right to life. From the dictionary "auxiliary" - 1 a : offering or providing help b  : functioning in a subsidiary capacity. Do you GET IT yet?71.184.184.238 (talk) 18:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
It is frustrating that Hauskalainen seems incapable of pointing to third party secondary sourcing, and instead favors telling us over and over again using thousands of words his personal thoughts cluttering the talk page. That said, perhaps the compromise here is that the "natural rights" viewpoint of the Second Amendment does exist in reliable sourcing relative to modern times in the USA. Certainly in recent times advocates of one of the POV's have sought to frame a "natural rights" argument, and we could neutrally describe that they are doing this. It doesn't look like we can blindly parrot their 'originalism' assertion that this is an ancient connection. But, we can say that "persons X,Y&Z" claim it has an ancient connection in English history. SaltyBoatr get wet 16:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Please provide a source that anyone calls the right to keep and bear arms a natural right. TFD (talk) 17:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Funny thing! I did that this morning! Lysander Spooner championed the popular abolitionist argument that slavery was inconsistent with constitutional principles, citing as evidence the fact that it deprived black Americans of the “natural right of all men‘to keep and bear arms’ for their personal defence,” which he believed the Constitution “prohibit[ed] both Congress and the State governments from infringing.” L. Spooner,The Unconstitutionality of Slavery
Did you miss natural right of all men‘to keep and bear arms’?71.184.184.238 (talk) 17:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


@TFD 17:31. You see it sometimes in discussions of a 'natural right' of revolution. See for instance the Williams book pgs 85, 121 and 145, ISBN 9780300095623, which discusses whether the 'natural right' of revolution is, or is not, considered by the framers to be protected by the 2A. (though this doesn't confirm the ancient English History in connection to self protection). The Lysander Spooner quote is the tip of an iceberg about discussion of the 'natural right' of 19th Century American slaves (and freed slaves) to have guns for self protection. (By the mid-19th Century 'bear arms' much more commonly meant 'have guns' than in the previous century.) See discussion of this Lysander Spooner premise in Saul Cornell's book ISBN 9780195147865, page 154. Again, this is not confirmation of the ancient English History, but rather confirmation of the advent of the "self protection" viewpoint of the 2A emerging in the mid-19th Century. This is touched on in the circularity of the "self defense" rationalization behind the lastest McDonald decision, see Alison LaCroix's criticism of the SCOTUS methodology here: "The suggestion is that we in 2010 now have access to what they in 1868 meant, even though a different “they” in the 1870s and 1880s had an entirely different idea about what people in 1866 meant.". SaltyBoatr get wet 18:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I disagree in one respect. The right is the right to self defense. The Founders were more worried about self-defense from an abusive government. In the 19th Century the emphasis was placed on "self defense" from you fellow man. The right has always been about self defense. The emphasis on who you defend yourself from is the only thing that has changed.71.184.184.238 (talk) 18:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

IP, no I did not miss it. In fact I said, "Lysander Spooner's reference (from 1860!) to "the natural right" is not persuasive". I also said, "Please find a reliable source that calls them "natural rights" (my emphasis). No legal scholar from Coke to Blackstone to Story to Scalia calls it a "natural right". Saltyboatr, saying that people have a "natural right" to life, liberty and property is not the same as saying they have a natural right to bear arms or any of the other rights protected under the U. S. Bill of Rights. That is the understanding of all the scholars I presented and I have found no reliable source that holds differently. The most they say is that without these "auxiliary" rights, they would not be able to execute their natural rights. TFD (talk) 18:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Lysander Spooner was in fact a noted legal scholar, whose works are still in print after 150 years.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dus-stripbooks-tree&field-keywords=lysander+spooner&x=0&y=0

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Lysander_Spooner - Lysander Spooner (January 19, 1808 – May 14, 1887) was an American individualist anarchist, lawyer, entrepreneur, libertarian, political philosopher, abolitionist, supporter of the labor movement, and legal theorist of the nineteenth century.71.184.184.238 (talk) 19:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

'Hauskalainen @ other editors Before I take this dispute to a noticeboard I want to be clear about what they wish to dispute so that I know how to present the dispute and which noticeboard it should go to. We have amassed sufficient evidence in sources which seem to support the case that

  • the right to have arms for self preservation and collectve defence was a pre-existing right (ignoring for the moment if we regard that right as a natural right, a common law right or something else). Do TFD and Salty still dispute this?
  • the view presented by Malcolm of a developing right was a novel one when it was published. No other author had previously argued that there was no right to arms before laws codifying the obligation for collective defence were enacted. Do TFD and Salty still dispute this?
  • There clearly is a dispute about "natural rights" and whether the references I have supplied are referring to natural rights (TFD's argument is that they do not) or whether they do but that the meaning of "natural rights" has changed over time (SalthyBaotr's argument for which he wants his opponents to prove him wrong rather than for him to prove is contention). I and the IP editor above argue that the references either directly refer to natural rights directly or in effect imply natural rights (because no other source for them is claimed).

Given the overlap between claims of WP:OR and WP:RS I am inclined to suggest that we take this to a WP:NOR noticeboard. What do you think?

Do you want to take the other issues numbered 1-6 under the heading "Issues with the English History section" above to the same dispute resolution process? If the answer to this is yes then clearly after 7 days or so of arguing about this section we are not much further along the line. I still have the impression that you guys are going to carry on edit warring with me over this section when the protection is lifted. shall we ask for an extension to the protection for another week? --Hauskalainen (talk) 23:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

All your questions above are about what is WP:TRUTH, or not. We should not engage in a discussion of personal beliefs about truth or myth on this talk page. The way it works around here is what is WP:NOTTRUTH. To get an answer to that, we need to verify by checking your sources. Tell us your sources, and then we can answer the questions, by verifying the answer in the sources. Tell us your sources!!! SaltyBoatr get wet 01:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
All of your objections amount to nothing more then censorship of a POV that you don't agree with. Again: Please stop objecting to material already supported in the article. In the "Experience in America prior to the U.S. Constitution" Section the right to defend yourself is already listed as a "natural right" supported by citation 28 as follows
early American settlers viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms as important for facilitating a --> natural right of self-defense supported by this citation -Hardy, p. 1237. "Early Americans wrote of the right in light of three considerations: (1) as auxiliary to a natural right of self-defense; (2) as enabling an armed people to deter undemocratic government; and (3) as enabling the people to organize a militia system." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.184.238 (talk) 12:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Your source does not say the right to arms is a natural right, but an auxiliary right. TFD (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Maloney v. Rice - vacated & remanded

Maloney v. Rice, mentioned in the article's Judicial interpretations section, has been vacated and remanded in light of McDonald v. Chicago (Source). The references to that case should be removed. If a new ruling is handed down in the case, it can be added to the article. SMP0328. (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I added a note to that effect for the time being. Before removing it entirely I think we should see how the section will shake-out in a post-McDonald world. It's pretty clear that many of the articles that have large sections of speculation about 2A will need to be rewritten. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 22:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Now if only the latest war over this article could be resolved. SMP0328. (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Lrenh, 1 July 2010

{{editprotected}} Because Heller did not make such a determination, it remains an open question. McDonald v. Chicago, currently before the Court, addresses this question.


Lrenh (talk) 06:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you please explain what you want changing? Thank you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Just a guess, but maybe because it is no longer "an open question" and McDonald is not "currently before the Court". I also have to say that this is the crappiest timing I've ever seen to totally protect a page from being edited when an event has happened that has completely changed everything about the subject matter. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Chicago Kent problem issue

I put in a request to get the following question answered

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Chicago_Kent_Law_Review_-_one_specific_issue_only

Would this issue be considered "self-published" as the content was under the full control of Joyce and not the normal law review staff?

Per that request it looks like it can subject to the following conditions

1)per Metropolitan90: Michael A. Bellesiles should not be used - due to the problems that were found in his scholarship from around that period regarding gun-related issues, which led him to resign his professorship.

2)per Itsmejudith: The standing of the publication as RS is not affected either way by the involvement of the Joyce Foundation. It is not a peer-reviewed academic journal anyway. Articles in it should be judged according to the reputation of the authors.

3)also per Metropolitan90: I would not exclude the articles in this Chicago-Kent Law Review issue on the grounds that they are "self-published". There is no reason to think that the academics who contributed to the symposium didn't believe the views they were expounding, notwithstanding the fact that they were paid for their articles. (Also, it should be noted that the CKLR already had an all-symposium format, and having an outside editor select the articles for an issue is standard procedure at that law review.) HOWEVER, I would tend to think that these articles could be cited primarily for the fact that there were academics who held the view that the Second Amendment is a collective, not individual, right. That was their opinion, and it was a notable opinion that could be described as an opinion in a Wikipedia article. But the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, several years after the CKLR issue was published, that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. (See District of Columbia v. Heller; see also McDonald v. Chicago.) Consequently, if the contributors to the CKLR issue were to revisit the issue today, most of them would have to take that into account and probably have to at least reconsider their arguments and conclusions.

The Bold text on 3 is mine, the italic is faithfull to the original.71.184.184.238 (talk) 20:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Dbebell, 2 July 2010

{{editprotected}} Substitute "principle" for "principal" in third sentence of text of this paragraph in the article on the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The usage of this word as written is incorrect.

The English law includes the proviso that arms must be as "allowed by law." This has been the case before and after the passage of the Bill of Rights. The Bill did not override earlier restrictions on the ownership of guns for hunting written to preserve the hunting rights of the landed aristocracy, and applying the principal of parliament's right to repeal, explicitly of implicitly. [13] A few, however, contend that, as the Bill of Rights provision has not been repealed, it remains effective, parliamentary supremacy notwithstanding.[14] Parliament thouugh has repeatedly increased restrictions on firearms or other defensive weapons so as to make the legal possession of them virtually impossible. These actions have generally reflected British public's concerns over their potential misuse as weapons of offense. The Supreme court of the United States also noted that the American right is not absolute and is subject to legislative controls, though it mentioned reasonableness as to access by felons and the insane. However, the American Second Amendment, because of the nature of the U.S. Constitution, is much less subject to diminution or elimination.


Dbebell (talk) 15:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 16:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

Gradually working our way through the steps of dispute resolution.

1 Avoiding disputes 1.1 Focus on content 1.2 Stay cool 1.3 Discuss with the other party

2 Resolving disputes 2.1 Sensitive and privacy-related issues

2.2 Editor assistance

2.3 Ask for a third opinion

2.4 Ask about the subject

2.5 Ask about a policy

2.6 Ask for help at a relevant noticeboard

2.7 For incivility

2.8 Request a comment

2.9 Informal mediation

2.10 Formal mediation

  • Information mediation was refused[50]. It seems the next step is to try formal mediation. What do other editors think? Are the parties to the dispute willing to participate in format mediation? SaltyBoatr get wet 16:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
    • The mediator's offer was rejected because the mediator had no editing history. Who was this guy? Your alter-ego? Also I did not think that we had exausted all means to resolve the dispute. I had not raised my main complaint (that you were structuting the article to tell one version of history when in fact this is a recent revisionist view which has not had wide acceptance by the academic community and the other, more traditional view should have much greater weight than this revisionist one and which the article (because of the way it has been edited in the past and which I am now trying to correct) had completed expunged this more traditional view of history completely. Hauskalainen (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

2.11 Conduct a survey

3 If the situation is urgent

4 Last resort: Arbitration

You are attacking this issue with lightening speed Salty. I cannot even keep up with the flow on these pages let alone chase the same issues at other places. I do not agree with the way that you have described the problem. In many cases you have completely changed the nature of the dispute.--Hauskalainen (talk) 05:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I decline to participate in dispute resolution with SaltyBoatr. Checking the dispute form and finding my name on it, already with an allegations of IP hopping, I decline to get involved in a shit tossing contest.71.184.184.238 (talk) 18:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

RfC: English History Section of this article

Two article protections have been placed on this article in recent times and the second of these is about to end.

We have sources to show that the right to have arms (offensive and/or defensive tools - not necessarily firearms) was the right of every Englishman BEFORE the passage of the Bill of Rights in the 17th Century. Because there were few laws banning arms, the general rule was that arms were permitted. There have been many controls on certain particularly lethal forms of arms over the last 100 years or so (such as firearms and knives), but the general right of every man or woman to use arms to defend their life when in extreme danger remains open as a last resort. As far as I am aware this right preceded the English Bill of Rights which mentioned an explicit restatement of that right for Protestants who had been disarmed by the King (later deposed) whilst Catholics had been allowed to have them.

In recent times the American Author Joyce Lee Malcolm (who has strong links to the pro-gun lobby) has come along and turned this upside down claiming that (a) Englishmen only acquired the right to guns through a series of obligations put on them to have arms to defend the nation; (b) that though the English Bill of Rights referred to "ancient rights" this was somehow an invention - she claims that there were no ancient rights and (c) that the English Bill of Rights created a right to have arms #but only gave it to protestants and that (d) the right was perfected for all in America by the passing of the Second Amendment.

So we have at least 2 views of history that are wholly incompatible with each other.

Verion 1 is this:-

The English had always had rights to arms as an historic fact in a world without a local protection agency to support the peace and that this was carried over into America. A dispute with the King in England and tussles over the disarming of Protestants led to the ousting of a King and the instigation of new monarchy (two joint monarchs in fact) that were persuaded to accede that the Monarchy could not disarm the Protestant citizenry. (Although the text says says "may have arms" and not "may not be disarmed" the effect was this because the "right" - the text does not use the word "right" - could be overruled by Parliament, as it has done in the case of many types of firearms. It was not an act preventing Catholics to have arms and Catholics did continue to have arms. Americans had similarly been disarmed by a British King in the wars of independence and following independence and the creation of the Federal government, fearing that the new Federal government could try to exert authority over the States in the same way as the British had done, the States drew up an Amendment to their new constitution preserving the right to arms as matter for the states and not for the Federal government.

Version 2 is this:-

The British were sibjects of the King and had to be allowed to have weapons. Because there was grant of rights to have arms before the 12th century, there was no right for a person to have arms in England at that time. Then the King started passing laws forcing some people to keep arms for the common defence. Not until the 17th century was a law passed granting rights, but this was given only to Protestants and not to Catholics. Americans, went further and granted this right to all Americans.

(This is in part based on Professor Malcolm's new thesis.)


When I started to get involved in this article I noticed that it had been written to tell only the second version of history. It was structured to tell the myth of a hard one developing right perfected in America in its constitution. As myths go it is up there with King Arthur and the Round Table. Great fiction and rotten history. Nevertheless this one historian has claimed this so I suppose it has to be a POV. I objected to the article being written this way and was met by a wall of objections from a group of editors that seem to dominate the article.

This group of editors ín my opinion are playing WP:Game and WP:Tag. They try to wear you down by endlessly objecting to any edit made or proposed and more recently by objecting to each and every reference I have provided in support of version 1 (the version of history that has held for many centuries and is still held by most English scholars I am sure). Some editors have taken my side but I suspect that this is part of the cabal wanting me to give up in the hope that the other party will take up the cudgel.

I think English and American history is more important than to leave it to a small cabal of editors editing American Gun Rights articles.

The page protection is about to end and the editor I have been mostly in dispute with has indicated that he intends to start editing a Sandbox version of the article during the page protection period and undo my attempt at bringing balance to this section of the article.

Assistance PLEASE!!!!Hauskalainen (talk) 01:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the English had always had the right to arms and frankly it saddens me to see that Parliament has now taken that right away from just about everyone in England, excepting a few farmers and assorted law enforcement. Regarding your complaints above I believe one editor is engaged in EXCESSIVE obstructionism and POV censorship. Pretty much everyone else is pushing their personal beliefs in a "normal" manner. Nobody likes to admit that they are wrong, and it takes much beating over the head and shoulders before people change their minds. Many never do.
Hopefully the following article will be of use to you. http://old.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel091602.asp71.184.184.238 (talk) 02:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
This can be changed "Scholars and lawyers recognize that the Second Amendment has its origins in the text of the English Bill of Rights of 1689 though one disputes its relevance.". Wiki policy is not to include small minority opinions. One is about a small of a minority as you can get.71.184.184.238 (talk) 02:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
This can be changed as well "The right to bear arms in English history is believed to have been regarded as a natural right for the preservation of the person, though one American historian has expressed a contrary view that the right developed over a period of 500 or so years beginning in the twelfth century." Wiki policy is not to include small minority opinions. One is about a small of a minority as you can get.71.184.184.238 (talk) 02:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
This is plainly wrong "On the face of it, it seems that both the American and the English texts are about the granting of a right to arms; in the U.S. case, a right granted to the Militias of the individual states, and in the English case to the subjects that are protestants." The US Bill of Rights protects a pre-existing right, and I believe that the English Bill of Right does the same.71.184.184.238 (talk) 02:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
This is wrong "The English text used the term to have arms while the American text uses the term bear arms which historians have described as having a military connotation in context of the necessity for militia to protect a free state." In Heller the Supreme Court stated that bear arms means to carry arms and that this term does not have a military connotation. I went and checked an older "large" dictionary from Merriam Webster and the primary meaning was "to carry" and the secondary was "to serve as a soldier". The primary meaning takes precedence (is assumed) unless otherwise indicated. 71.184.184.238 (talk) 02:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
The author this RfC has been asked repeatly to provide sources for this because we can only put into the article what is in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 05:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Your objection is not clear. Try again!71.184.184.238 (talk) 11:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Think the objection (which I agree with) is that it is not something that can be sorted out by debating what the historical-legal position is. We need sources that support the wording of the text. This claim: "the right to bear arms in English history is believed to have been regarded as a natural right for the preservation of the person" has no sourcing, for example. Since it appears to be disputed, it shouldn't really be there unless a good source can be found. --FormerIP (talk) 13:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
The right of self preservation is the right to self defense. See Blackstone's "fifth auxiliary right" which states in part "The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence". The statement would sound better if changed as follows "The right to bear arms in English history was in support of the natural right of self defense" or something similar. An auxiliary right is a "supporting" right. 71.184.184.238 (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Blackstone saw it as more than that, something required in order to protect other natural rights as well.[51] TFD (talk) 16:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Self defense covers a lot of ground - up to and including armed revolt against tyrants.71.184.184.238 (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
It needs to be explained properly, because not only is the right to bear arms auxiliary to the right to self defense, but the Whigs considered it essential in order to protect all natural rights. But they did not see it as a natural right in itself, but rather a right that was necessary in order to protect natural rights. TFD (talk) 02:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
You have the right to life and you have the right to breathe. Breathing is an auxiliary right to the right to life. It is also a natural right, so an auxiliary right can be a natural right. In the case of arms, perhaps you are right that the right to arms is not a natural right and is only an auxiliary right. Then again you may be wrong as the Supreme Court cited Revolutionary War era documents which state that the right to arms is a natural right. Personally I don't think it matters much if either of those words is used in the article, and it probably is better just to call it "a right" or "the right". Per the wiki article on natural rights "In contrast, natural rights (also called moral rights or inalienable rights) are rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity. Natural rights are thus necessarily universal, whereas legal rights are culturally and politically relative." I hope we can agree that the right to breathe is not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society"71.184.184.238 (talk) 03:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
The article is supposed to represent mainstream views of the Second Amendment as found in reliable sources, and there is no reason why we should be discussing the right to keep milk or to breathe except as they are found in reliable sources relating to this subject. If reliable sources all say they are natural rights, then they are natural rights. If reliable sources say auxiliary rights are natural rights, then they are natural rights. But it is not up to us to determine our own definitions of these terms. TFD (talk) 04:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Do you now understand that an auxiliary right can be a natural right?71.184.184.238 (talk) 12:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
It does not matter what I understand or how persuasive your arguments may be. You need a reliable source that states that auxiliary rights are natural rights.

Salty Boatr - You are already in violation of 3RR

Wiki policy is no more then 3 edits which delete already appearing article text within 24 hours.

Multiple edits without intervening changes by other editors counts as one edit.

You are already at 4 edits with intervening changes by other editors.

Please reverse one of those as good faith toward avoiding another edit war.71.184.184.238 (talk) 14:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe that I have not been engaging in edit war, though it would be helpful if you were to show the exact diffs of the edits which you view as being problematic. Thanks. SaltyBoatr get wet 14:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Intervening posts by others exist for your 4 changes below

1)http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=371540540&oldid=371539403

2) This is a revert of one of my changes - there is no problem adding NEW text - restoring old deleted text is not adding new text - http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=371542044&oldid=371542022

3) http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=371544038&oldid=371543851

4)same as 2 above - you restored text deleted by Hauskalainen http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=371545164&oldid=37154430371.184.184.238 (talk) 14:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit rich for Salty to complain about me "edit warring" when he blatantly goes about adding back into the article material which is clearly POV but not marked as such. Especially when this has been the major issue which I have raised over and over again at the talk page during the last page protection period. How can it "flow from a long tradition of militia service" if it is in any case a right emanating from the "natural right to life"? His reference did not even say that! It must come from the first and not the second! He accuses me of writing without references and presenting bias but my goodness what a nerve he has! Now I see he has complained about me indirectly again and is seeking another page protection. Is he going to get another friendly editor to sneak in some more changes through and then get a sympathetic Admin to slap on the page protection before he goes on on vacation? --Hauskalainen (talk) 17:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not up speed on this natural right debate here. But judging based on discussions on the other aspects, I think that Salty is incessantly pushing a POV, and is using his/her wikipedia-saaviness (and endless badgering in this talk section) to push his/her POV rather than to improve the article.North8000 (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Agree 100%!71.184.184.238 (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Rather, I am guilty of NPOV pushing. Policy says we must write articles from a neutral point of view, representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias.. Deletion of content just because you personally dislike it is against policy. Your accusation of POV pushing is uncivil and false. Discuss content, not editors. If we disagree about WP:NPOV lets take it the NPOV noticeboard. Also, it probably is time to proceed to formal mediation. SaltyBoatr get wet 02:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
You are guilty of a 3RR violation and if you truly believed that deletion of content you dislike is against policy, you would stop doing it. So tell me, why did you delete the reference to militia and replaced it with slave control as a reason for the Second? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.184.238 (talk) 03:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey, guys

Stop accusing each other of 3RR and discuss your changes. Try to find a compromise. If another editwar flames up after the two-week full protection is up, both sides will find themselves blocked. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 17:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

My changes were listed above in "English history of the article". 71.184.184.238 (talk) 19:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
What if some, but not all, editors are willing to compromise? Will only the non-compromising editor(s) be blocked or will all of the editors involved in this dispute be blocked? SMP0328. (talk) 19:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
As far as I can see only SaltyBoatr is in violation of 3RR. Why should others be punished? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.184.238 (talk) 19:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Hauskalainen

You say the Second prohibits Congress from changing the law

1) What law are you talking about?

2) Where do you see the word Congress in the language of the Second - A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed71.184.184.238 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC).

English History section dispute

Enough of the bickering. The focus here should be reaching consensus on the dispute over the wording of the English History section, (needed to lift the article lock). A few thousand words above the bickering, Hauskalainen restated once again what he wants written in the article. I restated once again that I need to see it confirmed in third party reliable sourcing. How can we break this impasse? SaltyBoatr get wet 16:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

So when I take this to arbitration you will have no comment?
The issue is the structuring of the article to tall these myths. If you want to continue with this nonsense that there was no right to arms in England before the 12th century you had better have something stronger than a one liner from a professor sympathetic to the gun lobby and the protection of gun holders rights. That's a bit POV I'd say. Also, you had better have some stronger evidence for the claim that the Bill of Rights was a GRANTING of new rights amd not a restitution of pre-existing ones. If you lose that argument then you'll lose the right to tell the myth of progression too because it SIMPLY DOES NOT STAND UP TO SCRUTINY. Sorry.
You'd do better to discuss the points that I have made with some sincerity and stop using arguments of rules of content to try to block this. My words are not intended as content but as something to stand before a body of people examining my claims. I will provide plenty of evidenece when we get to that stage and I think you are clear in your own mind that I can do so. Hence your admission that there may indeed be something in what I am saying.

I will keep my comments under the main headings of the dispute and will not comment any further in this section. I suggest you and others do the same.--Hauskalainen (talk) 20:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

And Salty's comment about bickering is incredible in the light of this http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=371540540&oldid=371539403 edit later on which completely ignored the complaints that have been made that he is pushing one POV to the exclsuion of others! The right to bear ams in England comes, according to MOST legal and historical scholars from the right to life. What he wrote he (that it stems from an obligation to do military service flies in the face of all evidence we have about arms in England - that they existed long before the formalization of a legal system. Even cavemen had arms and no doubt used them from time to time.--Hauskalainen (talk) 07:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Saltyboatr's position is reasonable. If you want to put an interpretation of history into the article then you must find a reliable source (not a court judgment or a 200 year old account), but a contemporary peer reviewed article in an academic journal or a book published by the academic press. Saltyboatr has provided one such source and if you want other views presented, you must provide sources also. It may well be that scholarship favors your view, but without sources we cannot present it. TFD (talk) 21:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
If that source is Malcolm,look up what the Supremes said that she said. It should be easy. I put it on this discussion page.96.237.120.38 (talk) 15:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
What English case before the Bill of Rights 1689 established that the right to bear arms existed? TFD (talk) 16:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
The "case" of English public opinion. Nearly every major English law protecting peoples rights was won, as Blackstone put it "sword in hand". The Magna Carta and Bill of Rights were not exceptions. In case you missed it, King James II was run out of England, this time GUN IN HAND, partially for disarming Protestants while arming Catholics (his power base/support group).96.237.120.38 (talk) 20:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure who you are addressing this question. The thing you are likely to find with the answer is that there are different answers depending the point of view. We, per policy, need to neutrally address all significant points of view.
Also, an ambiguity of the phasing of your question is that "bear arms" has different meanings to different people, and indeed in different time frames. Certainly, in recent decades "bear arms" most commonly means "having guns", or similar. One POV believes that this 'guns' meaning is universal over centuries of time. Another POV believes in the English Language of centuries ago, "bear arms" (with a few rare exceptions) almost always means to "serve military duty". See the famous 1995 Garry Wills article[52] about this. One familiar example is the usage of the term "bear arms" in the Declaration of Independence where the term was used to describe service on the deck of a warship by conscripted sailors[53] who for fear of mutiny against the British officers certainly had no access to guns or gun powder what-so-ever. In any case, we should give coverage to all the points of view.
Regarding "common law". It is striking that the AnonIP and Hauskalainen have repeatedly failed to provide third party reliable sourcing that having weapons (which is arguably not the same thing as 'bearing arms') is considered to be common law. Though, I suspect that if you looked hard enough you could find a source that said it was. Funny thing is that when I went looking to find a source that says that having weapons is considered to be protected by Common Law, I stumbled across a book that said exactly the opposite. It said that the crime of carrying weapons...may be considered part of the common law. (dating to 1328). In any case, we should give this coverage, AND we should covering all the significant points of view (not just the favorite POVs of the editors) and we should be checking all the content for verifiability. So, the next step is to find the reliable sourcing.
This is contentious and we should be careful to give fair treatment to all significant POV's. SaltyBoatr get wet 19:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
In the US the right to arm is not "common law". It is a part of the Bill of Rights and therefore "civil law".96.237.120.38 (talk) 20:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I read your link and it states that under common law, it was a misdemeanor to carry weapons, the ruling does not say that one can't have weapons at home. 96.237.120.38 (talk) 20:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
BTW: that ruling you referenced was based on a "statute" and today would be considered a matter of "civil law", not common law. 96.237.120.38 (talk) 20:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
According to S. C. v. Dawson (1968),[54] "going armed with unusual and dangerous weapons to the terror of the people" is a misdemeanor at common-law. This offense was later incorporated in the statute of Northhampton of 2 Edw. III, ch. 3. (Riding or Going Armed Act 1328 c. 3). (See: List of Acts of the Parliament of England to 1601). Both of these laws continue in U. S. unless repealed or superceded. Blackstone wrote about the offense in his Commentaries, Book 4, chapter 11, para 9 (p. 149).[55] Still we need reliable contemporary sources that explain whether there was a common law right to keep arms and how this related to the common law misdemeanor of "going armed". (PS - IP, SaltyBoatr's source says, "the crime... may be regarded as part of the common law...." IOW, it is an offence under common law but is normally prosecuted under statute law, and common law prosecutions are extremely rare.) TFD (talk) 20:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. Without sourcing, this hypothesizing about ancient rights is not anything more than irrelevant personal research. There is plenty of great high quality sourcing about the 2A, let's just read it all, then write an article that fairly captures all the significant points of view. (And you write: "keep arms" and "going armed" while per plenty of sources, it is not at all clear that this is the same thing as "bearing arms".) I am tired of hearing people's personal theories and the sloppy blurring of the distinction between "having guns" and "bearing arms". That personal chatter may be valuable, but it has no place on this article talk page. Ultimately, it is disruptive. Let's talk about what we read in the sourcing and how to improve the article. SaltyBoatr get wet 20:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
A gun is a "usual weapon" and not an unusual weapon. Also "self defense" is not "for the terror of the people". And by definition every weapon is "dangerous". If it wasn't it wouldn't be a weapon.96.237.120.38 (talk) 12:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Cramer (who is mentioned in this article), argued that the common law right to keep and bear arms derived from common law, and adds, "Of more importance to a study of the liberal nature of the Second Amendment are the laws with respect to armed self-defense. "The Laws of Cnut ( 1020-1023) not only considered armed self-defense a right and duty," but provided for penalties for illegally disarming a man." (Cramer, Clayton E. For the Defense of Themselves and the State: The Original Intent and Judicial Interpretation of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Westport, CT.: Praeger Publisher, 1994. p. 24.) His reference is to Norman A. V. B., and Don Pottinger, English Weapons & Warfare: 449-1660, (New York: Dorset Press, 1979), pp. 38-40. Unfortunately the only evidence he presents is Coke and Blackstone, and he does not mention whether Cnut's law confirmed existing common law or whether it continued in force beyond 1066. TFD (talk) 01:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
The Supreme Court stated that to "bear arms" means to "carry arms". This quote, from Heller, is included in the Article.

A purposive qualifying phrase that contradicts the word or phrase it modifies is unknown this side of the looking glass (except, apparently, in some courses on Linguistics). If "bear arms" means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage ("for the purpose of self-defense" or "to make war against the King"). But if "bear arms" means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add "for the purpose of killing game." The right "to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game" is worthy of the mad hatter.[165] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.120.38 (talk) 12:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


Common law right to arms prior to English Bill of Rights

http://www.guncite.com/journals/caprec.html

THE RIGHT OF THE INDIVIDUAL TO BEAR ARMS: A RECENT JUDICIAL TREND by David I. Caplan

Copyright © 1982 Detroit College of Law Review. Originally published as 4 Det. L.R. 789-823 (1982

The first limitation in England on the right of a law-abiding person to keep and bear arms was enacted as one of the provisions in the 1181 Statute of Assize of Arms.[14] It prohibited the possession and ordered the disposition of all coats of mail or breastplates in the hands of Jews.[15] The next prohibition apparently came in the 1328 Statute of Northampton under King Edward III,[16] and banned all private persons from using any force in public "in affray of the peace," or from going or riding armed in public at all.[17] This Statute of Northampton was re-enacted with increased penalties Under King Richard II;[18] in its re-enacted version the statute focused solely on going or riding armed, that is, regardless of an affray of the peace. Nevertheless, by 1686 the English common law courts had placed a judicial gloss on these statutes and required, for a conviction thereunder, that the accused had gone armed "malo animo" (with evil intent) or "to terrify the King's subjects."[19] Specifically, in Rex v. Knight[20] the accused had been charged with violating the Statute of Northampton by "walk[ing] about the streets armed with guns, and go[ing] into the church of St. Michael, in Bristol, in the time of divine service, with a gun, to terrify the King's subjects."[21] Under the judge's instructions, that an essential element of the crime of violating the Statute of Northampton (p.795)was "go[ing] armed to terrify the King's subjects,"[22] the jury acquitted the accused.[23] The court further noted that the Statute of Northampton was "but an affirmance" of the common law.[24]96.237.120.38 (talk) 21:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

also of note from Caplan

Among other things, this legislative history demonstrates that the English Bill of Rights' provision on the right to keep arms was a reaction to previous seizures of privately held arms, and that the solemn understanding was reached that such seizures should never occur again. Thus, the initially proposed purpose of this right for their "common Defence"[66] was transformed into a right "for their Defence,"[67] that is, to include an individual right of armed self-defense as had obtained under the common law. It is noteworthy that an apparent attempt to restrict the right to keep and bear arms, in the United States Bill of Rights, to "the common defence"[68] was defeated just 100 years later, in the first Senate of the United States in the floor debates on the proposal for what became the second amendment.96.237.120.38 (talk) 21:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

What is your point? TFD (talk) 21:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I seem to remember quite a bit of bitching about no sources for the common law right to arms. Quite recently as a matter of fact. Like today! Just think this also satisfies your "Will you stick to history" bitch. Among other things, this legislative history demonstrates that the English Bill of Rights' provision on the right to keep arms was a reaction to previous seizures of privately held arms, and that the solemn understanding was reached that such seizures should never occur again.. It seems that I was sticking to history.96.237.120.38 (talk) 21:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Notice the reference to the 1328 Statute of Northampton, which is an early gun control law[56]. This cut and paste above, if anything, undercuts the premise that a right to arms is considered protected under common law in England. That 1328 Statute[57], controlling arms, is part of common law. SaltyBoatr get wet 21:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
And the courts chose to interpret the law in a way that is upheld prior "unwritten" common law, and not in a way that "supplanted" prior common law. The court further noted that the Statute of Northampton was "but an affirmance" of the common law.96.237.120.38 (talk) 22:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
The question is whether the right to bear arms was created by the Bill of Rights 1689 or whether it existed earlier. Your quote and comments support the view that the Bill created the right. TFD (talk) 22:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
@TFD The 1689 Bill of Rights uses the wording "have arms" not the wording "bear arms". There is a difference. SaltyBoatr get wet 22:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
You still don't get the Supreme Court language on your position do you. Again: The short version direct from the US Supreme Court.The right "to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game" is worthy of the mad hatter.96.237.120.38 (talk) 22:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
If the first recorded violation of the right to arms happened in 1181 against Jews, then it is reasonable to state that prior to 1181, this right existed for all, and was not created in 1689. I personally can't see how something written in 1689 can create something that existed before 1181. If you can do so, please explain. 96.237.120.38 (talk) 22:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Sourcing please. Your modern political Libertarian viewpoint of universal rights needs to be cited in third party reliable sourcing. I believe that most sourcing identifies the origin of the concept of individual liberty came during the Age of Enlightenment, with Thomas Hobbes, and did not exist as a concept back into the mists of time. SaltyBoatr get wet 22:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
The sourcing is the first sentence of the material cited above The first limitation in England on the right of a law-abiding person to keep and bear arms was enacted as one of the provisions in the 1181 Statute of Assize of Arms.[14]96.237.120.38 (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I am trying to follow logic, but see a big gap. You seem to be arguing that there existed a common law right to arms prior to 1181. By this logic there was a 500 year gap in this right until it was restored in 1689 with the English Bill of Rights? That seems incredible. And David Caplan is arguing that The first limitation in England on the right of a law-abiding person to keep and bear arms was enacted (in) 1181 , yet when I check the Oxford English Dictionary the earliest example of the term 'bear arms' being used in the English Language was 400 years later 1568. How can the first limitation on bearing arms happen before the term 'bear arms' was coined in the English language? WP:REDFLAG And, this is relevant to judgement as to the source is 'third party', the author of that article is famous in part for his service on the board of directors of the National Rifle Association. SaltyBoatr get wet 00:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
The right always existed, before and after 1181, and before and after the English Bill of Rights. The English Bill of Rights did not restore that right. It protected it from those that would violate it, like James II. To bear arms means to "carry" them. If you can find the word or phrase used for a person going about his business with a weapon on his person, in use before 1568, then your problem is solved. I hope we can agree that people went around armed prior to 1568. Similar words is use may have been "borne, born, bore, bare" and likely other words as well.96.237.120.38 (talk) 01:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
In the Canterbury Tales the term for holding a weapon was "beren" See Ch 51 line 25. Was wont to beren in his hand a bowe.96.237.120.38 (talk) 02:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Of additional note from the cite above is the following: It is noteworthy that an apparent attempt to restrict the right to keep and bear arms, in the United States Bill of Rights, to "the common defence"[68] was defeated just 100 years later, in the first Senate of the United States in the floor debates on the proposal for what became the second amendment.. It looks like the US Senate examined making the right to arms a "collective right based on militia service" and said "Thanks but no thanks".96.237.120.38 (talk) 23:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

IP, please provide a source that states there was a right under common law re: arms and provide the name of the case where this issue was decided. TFD (talk) 01:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
From above: Specifically, in Rex v. Knight[20] the accused had been charged with violating the Statute of Northampton by "walk[ing] about the streets armed with guns, and go[ing] into the church of St. Michael, in Bristol, in the time of divine service, with a gun, to terrify the King's subjects."[21] Under the judge's instructions, that an essential element of the crime of violating the Statute of Northampton (p.795)was "go[ing] armed to terrify the King's subjects,"[22] the jury acquitted the accused.[23] The court further noted that the Statute of Northampton was "but an affirmance" of the common law. 96.237.120.38 (talk) 01:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I have already explained this several times. It was an offense under common law to bear arms (usually), and the common law offence was codified under the Statute of Northampton. Nothing to do with "rights". TFD (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
TFD, I think you wrote "bear arms" when you meant "carry guns". To be precise, these are not synonymous terms. SaltyBoatr get wet 13:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
According to the US Supreme Court "to bear" means "to carry". Something you should be familiar with by now. Yet again: Straight from the US Supreme Court. A purposive qualifying phrase that contradicts the word or phrase it modifies is unknown this side of the looking glass (except, apparently, in some courses on Linguistics). If "bear arms" means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage ("for the purpose of self-defense" or "to make war against the King"). But if "bear arms" means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add "for the purpose of killing game." The right "to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game" is worthy of the mad hatter 96.237.120.38 (talk) 13:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
The accused in Rex v Knight walked around ARMED, also went to church ARMED, was charged under the Statute of Northampton and was ACQUITED. For the dense: Acquitted means he was found innocent of a violation. Since he was acquitted, it is safe to say that the court decided he had every right to go around ARMED and even go to church ARMED.03:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.120.38 (talk)
Again, without a source, there are a number of American states that incorporate the English common law as it was in 1789, and have no "open carry" laws, and by consequence, in those areas, open carry is legal. I find the notion that there was a common law prohibition on open carry, with nothing else, a little extreme. That's all kind of irrelevant to this article though, and perhaps we should focus on the discussion as to what "bear arms" right (or those that bear on that right) existed prior to the constitution's adoption. Shadowjams (talk) 06:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
He was acquitted because he did not "walk about the streets armed with guns... to terrify the King's subjects". He probably intended to protect himself, not threaten other people. Therefore he was not guilty of the offense of bearing arms, which exists both under statute and common law. Nothing about a "right to bear arms". Same thing if you were charged with being drunk and were acquitted - it does not establish a right to drink. TFD (talk) 06:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Everything about the "right to bear arms". If he can walk around armed then he has the right to bear arms.96.237.120.38 (talk) 13:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, I don't think that at all proves that carrying a weapon was not permitted by the common law. I'd refer to my above point, and of course, as you said below, we need modern commentary on this, and I think the fact that the absence of prohibitions on open carry exist in a number of American states (and that they feel the need to be expressly outlawed in the others) suggests that the common law did not prohibit open carry in and of itself. But like we said, that's not the real point. Let's focus on those historic arguments (source of this whole argument) and their sources. Shadowjams (talk) 06:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the very wording of the Assize of Arms and the Statues of Winchester are more about arms control rather than any grant of arms. All of these point to the right of arms having been recognized as a natural right which could be restricted for the common good. This is the real history of arms in England (a common right held by everyone slowly being eroded during the development of a civil society) and not as Malcolm would have it that it flowed from military service. The most recent attempt here by SaltyBoatr to add bias in the article by presenting the latter as the one and only version of history is deplrable.--Hauskalainen (talk) 07:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

NH Constitution and Natural Rights

According to the NH Constitution, Article 2, self defense is a "natural right" and the rights to arms for defense is listed as a right "auxiliary" to that natural right. Notice that The right to arms is Article 2-a, making it "auxiliary" to Article 2. For the terminally stupid, there cannot be an Article 2-a if there is no Article 2. i.e. there cannot be a right to self defense with a gun if there is no right to self defense in the first place.

http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html

[Art.] 2. [Natural Rights.] All men have certain natural, essential, and inherent rights - among which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting, property; and, in a word, of seeking and obtaining happiness. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by this state on account of race, creed, color, sex or national origin. June 2, 1784

Amended 1974 adding sentence to prohibit discrimination.

[Art.] 2-a. [The Bearing of Arms.] All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state. December 1, 1982

Hopefully this will stop what seems to be never ending bickering on "natural" rights, auxiliary rights, fundamental rights and whatever other kind of rights anyone cares to bring up.71.184.184.238 (talk) 19:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It should. Clearly the right to bear arms is not a "natural" right, but an "auxiliary" right. TFD (talk) 15:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Article 2 talks about self defense being a "natural right". Self defense with a gun is a subset of that right. It is both a natural right and an auxiliary right. A right derived from a natural right is itself a natural right. 71.184.184.238 (talk) 16:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Clearly? How so? Rather, it is clear that one POV views it this way. We should include all significant points of view.
For what it is worth: This pertains to the state law in one state, New Hampshire. It is a leap of POV pushing logic that the wording of the Constitution of this one State is synonymous with the separate Constitution of the United States. (Obviously, they are different documents.) That said, I acknowledge that there is seen in reliable sourcing the strategy of looking to some of the state constitutions to find evidence and/or justification of an Individual Rights viewpoint. We should include this viewpoint in the article, but we should represent it neutrally as one viewpoint and describe in context of the other viewpoints seen. SaltyBoatr get wet 15:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Not sure if you are talking about "individual right" in the US legal sense. If so, the Supreme Court, defined that it is in the Heller case. In the US legal context, that, by definition, creates and defines the reality. North8000 (talk) 15:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
No, I am talking of the various viewpoints of the Second Amendment seen in reliable sourcing. And, I think you misunderstand Heller, which affirmed Parker v. District of Columbia 478 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007). The Court states pretty clearly, I quote: "Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities in protects are not limited to militia service" (emphasis added). The court seems quite clear that it merely added an individual right component, and did not nullify void or replace the militia service component of the right(s) protected by the Second Amendment. It added an individual right component to the militia service component, the States still have a protected right to well regulated militia. Are you claiming that Heller eliminated the protection of the right for the states to have militia? SaltyBoatr get wet 17:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
No, what I was saying is that, in the US legal context, that the 2nd amendment also applies to individuals, without militia related conditions is now a FACT, not an opinion. And while it may be appropriate to carry opinions that wish it would have been defined otherwise, it is not appropriate to carry opinions that claim that it IS otherwise. Just as, (per my previous analogy) while it might be appropriate to carry opinions that McCain SHOULD have been elected president, it is not appropriate to carry opinions that claim that he WAS elected president. North8000 (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Your analogy would also apply to pointing to the New Hampshire Constitution when the topic is the United States Constitution. Someone here might wish that the NH Constitution SHOULD have been used by the USA, but that doesn't make it so. I don't see your concern about militia related conditions, no one here is arguing for that. I am just noticing that there remains in WP:RS to be a militia based component in the 2A topic, and we must include that significant point of view. Are you saying we should cleanse out all mention of militia rights from this article!?! If not, what are you saying? Or, is your problem based on a false assumption that I deny the court precedence establishing an protection of an individual right of self defense? Certainly, I see that Heller did establish recognize that right and established a protection, so maybe you are angry not at me but at an imaginary foe. SaltyBoatr get wet 19:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
First Heller did not establish that right, Heller upHELD that right. To SB -I ran across the following sentence by someone trying to understand the Sentence Amendment which may help you grasp the individual rights view. "A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed." I leave you to ponder the type of person who would take that language to be a limitation on Books to only those "well-schooled".71.184.184.238 (talk) 21:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
First, to clarify, I am not saying, implying or suggesting anything about militia related rights. To loosely paraphrase my statement, it is: it is now a fact, not an opinion, that an individual has the rights defined by the second amendment even if they are not in any militia. And my complaint is that you seem to be wanting that fact as just one of many opinions. North8000 (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand me. I fully acknowledge that in 2008 the SCOTUS recognized for the first time that there was an individual rights component to the Second Amendment. While that is a fact, there still is history prior to 2008, and there still is differing opinions about that history seen in reliable sourcing. We must fairly and neutrally give coverage to that history. Ditto for the law. Presently, the only law that changed since Heller is in the District of Columbia. In Chicago, the law hasn't yet changed, but it has been remanded to the 7th Circuit for reconsideration based on the new holding of incorporation. Time will tell exactly what the 7th chooses to do. Let's watch what happens, let's not WP:CRYSTAL, and let's fairly write here what we read in the sourcing about both the law and the history. SaltyBoatr get wet 21:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I may have misunderstood you, but it certainly sounded like you were saying it should be covered that way.
The salient items of the Heller decision were it's finding (going from memory) that it also grants an individual right, that the preface does not affect the operative clause, and a few other findings. and the salient finding of the McDonald decision was that the same rights apply in relation to state and local laws. Why on earth would we avoid covering those salient points while we await the fate of a local law in a local court? North8000 (talk) 22:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Your memory of Heller might be wrong. The finding (properly called the holding) of Heller was, I quote: "In sum, we hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense." It appears that your memory is improperly remembering the dicta as if it was the holding. Interpretations of dicta from court opinions are notoriously difficult, kind of like reading tea leaves. Different people see different things. You are recalling portions which you personally want to see. People of other POV's see other things they want to see, for instance the portion where the lower courts have seen the "presumptively lawful" dicta to mean that virtually every gun control law on the books has been deemed Constitutional under the Second Amendment. And answering your question, if Heller is any indication, the lower courts have ruled in Heller unanimously (over 80 cases so far, and still counting) that gun control is constitutional. "...this celebrated landmark decision (Heller) has had almost no effect on the constitutionality of gun control. To date, the federal courts have yet to invalidate a single gun control law for violating the Second Amendment right to bear arms, despite scores of cases." It is anybodies guess what will happen with the remanding of McDonald, but if Heller is any indication...well, let's wait and see. SaltyBoatr get wet 22:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
The "presumptively lawful" is another of the 3-4 salient findings. Every Supreme court ruling is about a specific case or law. By your argument, the Roe v Wade article would say that it was just about setting one law aside, and leave out the coverage that it legalized abortion. North8000 (talk) 17:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
There is a huge difference between the scope of Roe v. Wade and DC v. Heller making your analogy wildly inappropriate. Two years of time and scores of court cases have tested whether Heller means the end of gun control and the verdict has been essentially unanimous. Heller has resulted in the strong and clear validation of gun control laws by the courts. The most striking gun control court case is Dick Heller's 2010 challenge, which failed After a Supreme Court Loss, Washington’s Gun Laws Pass Muster. Heller overturned a very narrow scope of gun law, that is: "lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense". Essentially nothing else, and there is no comparison what-so-ever to the scope of Roe v. Wade, if anything, it is the exact opposite. We are not seeing the legalization of guns, we are seeing the legalization of gun control. SaltyBoatr get wet 19:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

(Outdent) The core topic that we are debating here is (my words) you wanting to suppress coverage of the major determinations Heller and McDonald cases.

  • Heller: individual right, preamble not affecting or placing conditions on the operative clause, presumptive lawful, and 1 or 2 more
  • McDonald: the 2nd and Heller apply to State and Local laws

As a sidebar, until last week, it was not confirmed that Heller and the 2nd apply to State and Local laws, so how would rulings prior to that be indicative of the impact of the Heller decision? And, another sidebar, you are diverting by refuting a straw dog of a statement "Heller made all gun control laws illegal" that nobody made, and implying that that makes a case for supressing coverage of the salient statements of Heller and McDonald. North8000 (talk) 20:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)



Again - to SB- I would like information as to where this language originated: "Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities in protects are not limited to militia service". Above you posted it as Supreme Court language. It does not appear in Heller. Where does it appear?7 Failure to respond will be taken to mean that you "manufactured" it. In other words "you see things that other people don't see - imaginary things"! 71.184.184.238 (talk) 23:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you missed it. I wrote that Heller affirmed Parker v. District of Columbia 478 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007). Parker is presently binding court precedent. The quoted language comes from Parker. That said, it seems plainly obvious that the courts have not invalidated the militia based component of the right. (For that reason, among others, this article should give thorough coverage to the militia based history of the 2A.) The SCOTUS have added an individual component to the protection of the right, effective 2008, for a "lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense". They did not delete protection of the militia based component of the right. Neither did they add protection of "any gun, anybody, any where"; instead they emphatically reaffirmed that prohibitions of such as being "presumptively lawful". The SCOTUS declared in effect[58] that essentially every gun control law short of banning a "lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense" remains to be Constitutional. SaltyBoatr get wet 15:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Please post a link to that ruling. As you "quoted it" you should know where it can be found.71.184.184.238 (talk) 15:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Never mind! Found it myself, and I also found out you twisted the meaning by leaving out the last part of that quote. http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/parkerdc030907.pdf The complete quote is "Despite the importance of the Second Amendment’s civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual’s enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia." Peddle your POV somewhere else.71.184.184.238 (talk) 15:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


The language you cite does not appear anywhere in Heller. http://supreme.justia.com/us/554/07-290/opinion.html71.184.184.238 (talk) 17:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
to SB- I would like a reference as to where this language originated: "Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities in protects are not limited to militia service". Above you posted it as Supreme Court language. It does not appear in Heller. Where does it appear?71.184.184.238 (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The US Supreme Court states that it is an "ancient" right

The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.

A right can be natural, ancient, and auxiliary, all at the same time. It can also be inalienable, unalienable, and fundamental as well.71.184.184.238 (talk) 17:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

An auxiliary right is not a natural right, which should be obvious. Please provide a source that says otherwise. TFD (talk) 19:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
The right of self-preservation and the right to self-defense are the same. Blackstone said :The fifth and last auxiliary right ... is that of having arms for their defence,... Which is also declared by the same statute ... and is indeed a public allowance ... of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation.71.184.184.238 (talk) 19:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Stearns1.htm REPRESENTATIVE CLIFF STEARNS - Not only is the right to be armed a Constitutional right, it is also a fundamental natural right. Today and throughout history, civilian disarmament is a crucial step toward oppression.71.184.184.238 (talk) 20:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Cliff Stearns is not a legal authority, he was an aerospace engineer. Self-defence and self-preservation are of course natural rights, but keeping arms is an auxiliary right, which is why Blackstone lists it with auxiliary rights not natural rights. Please provide a reliable source that says the right to keep and bear arms is a natural right. P. S., please look up the word "auxiliary". TFD (talk) 21:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
The NH Constitution Article 2-a lists it as a natural right.71.184.184.238 (talk) 22:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
http://www.davekopel.com/2a/lawrev/commun1.htm David B. Kopel refers to it as a natural right - The natural right to arms had the purpose of facilitating resistance to both criminal governments and individual criminals.
http://gunowners.org/op0834.htm Brent Allan Winters also refers to it as a natural right - Indeed, the Second Amendment was theirs: they knew its meaning, had suffered long to earn its passage, and tolerated nothing less than each person's natural right to arms and private discipline in their use. Thus, without a hint of objection, they added the Second Amendment to the Constitution.
https://www.cato.org/pubs/scr/2008/Heller_Neily.pdf Clark Neily - references Malcolm who was used extensively by the Supreme Court - Professor Malcolm’s book To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origin of an English-American Right has been a key resource in the debate over the meaning of the Second Amendment because it documents the right of armed self-defense in England and explains how that right influenced the Framers’ conception of the natural right to arms they codified in the Second Amendment.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/554/07-290/opinion.html The US Supreme Court in Heller cites Revolutionary era sources which state that it is a natural right - And, of course, what the Stuarts had tried to do to their political enemies, George III had tried to do to the colonists. In the tumultuous decades of the 1760’s and 1770’s, the Crown began to disarm the inhabitants of the most rebellious areas. That provoked polemical reactions by Americans invoking their rights as Englishmen to keep arms. A New York article of April 1769 said that “[i]t is a natural right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defence.” A Journal of the Times: Mar. 17, New York Journal, Supp. 1, Apr. 13, 1769, in Boston Under Military Rule 79 (O. Dickerson ed. 1936); see also, e.g., Shippen, Boston Gazette, Jan. 30, 1769, in 1 The Writings of Samuel Adams 299 (H. Cushing ed. 1968).71.184.184.238 (talk) 23:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
You are searching through obscure sources to find trivial references. Try a law textbook or a court judgment. No the revolutionaries did not think it was a natural right, because they were competent in the law. TFD (talk) 05:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
You somehow missed that Heller WAS a Court judgment.71.184.184.238 (talk) 11:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
This whole discussion is skirting an important issue. Even if there is demonstrated to be a natural right to have guns, the mere existence of the right is not proof that this is the same right protected by the Second Amendment. There are thousands of rights not protected by the Second Amendment. Perhaps this right is protected by the Tenth Amendment? We should reduce the speculation here. Let's look to what the third party reliable sourcing says, and write what we see into the article. SaltyBoatr get wet 15:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
The US Supreme Court stated that the Second protects an individual right unconnected with service in a militia. 71.184.184.238 (talk) 15:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Maybe that vagary is the problem. The 2A protects an individual right, but which? (Answer: See the holding of Heller.) You are speaking of a different right. Show that the right you are speaking of is the same individual right the SCOTUS is speaking of. (And use secondary sourcing.) You have not shown this yet. And, you asserted above that the SCOTUS is speaking of the New Hampsire right. Really? Prove this please. SaltyBoatr get wet 15:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps SCOTUS was speaking about the right to keep and bear arms up your nose, in your mouth or even up your ass, but somehow I don't think so!- (And use secondary sourcing.) NO! Peddle your POV somewhere else.71.184.184.238 (talk) 17:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

TN Constitution and RKBA

Understanding what the Second Amendment meant in the 1790s might be found in looking at the state constitutional provisions for the right to keep and bear arms (RKBA), and how they have been interpreted over the years. It is also far more relevant to understanding the US Second Amendment than the opposition looking at the laws of other countries besides the United States. Tennessee was the 16th state admitted to the Union, about the time that the Bill of Rights was still a hot topic. The first Tennessee State Constitution had a right to keep and bear arms provision, and the current revision of 1870, Article I Section 26, reads:

"That the citizens of this state have a right

to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the

wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime."

The various state court rulings and state attorney general opinions can be summarized to: citizens have the right to keep and bear arms guaranteed for the purposes of self defense and future militia service. State attorney general opinions and supreme court rulings point out that the explicit guarantee for personal and common defense does not mean that Article I Section 26 excludes any of the unlisted common lawful uses of arms, from hunting rabbits to protecting livestock from predators.

(When my daughter defended herself from two men on her front lawn, the judge dismissed the charge of "going armed" and in dismissing that charge stated in open court that she had an "absolute right" to have a gun at her home for protection under Article I, Section 26.)

State attorney general opinions and supreme court rulings point out that regulation "with a view to prevent crime" cannot unduly restrict any of the common lawful ownership (keeping) or uses (bearing) of arms, from home defense to civilian marksmanship practice for future military service to hunting rabbits to defending livestock from predators to collecting as curios or ornaments or to any lawful non-criminal use, either the rights specificly enumerated (defense of the citizen and of the state) or any lawful uses not enumerated in Article I Section 26.

In other words, "to carry arms in the militia OR for the purpose of killing game" is the Tennessee court and attorney general reading of the RKBA in Article I Section 26. The ludicrous meme "to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game" is a straw argument worthy of a Mad Hatter.

The State and the United States have a vested interest in supporting the right of the citizens (people) to keep and bear arms in support of the "common defense" or "well-regulated militia" in having an armed populance from which to draw a militia in time of need, but that militia purpose is not exclusive nor does the state interest in an armed militia legitimize bans or prohibitions of ownership or use for non-militia purposes.

(The Act of Congress that created the National Guard (and the current US Code on the subject) describes the "unorganized militia" as persons eligible for military service but not enrolled. The range of age and gender has broadened over the years; basicly, if you can volunteer or be drafted for military service (which includes most able bodied adults), you are part of the unorganized militia. Even so, the militia clause is not exclusionary. The federal RKBA states "right of the people" and the state RKBA states "the citizens of this state". These RKBA guarantees do not say "the right of the militia" or "the militia of this state have a right": the people, the citizens, have the right to keep and bear arms, incidentally but not exclusively as preparation for volunteer military service.)

Tennessee has experimented with regulation "with a view to prevent crime" from the Army and Navy pistol act (a "saturday night special" ban) to discretionary permit for handgun carry (the "special deputy badge") to a fifteen day waiting period for handgun purchase. Tennessee has dropped the Army Navy pistol law, went to shall-issue permits administered like automobile drivers license, and an instanct background check for handgun purchase. Even though there was some legislative consideration of a handgun ban in the late 1950s, the executive (state attorney general office) and the judicial (state courts) have pretty much opined and ruled that Article I Section 26 does not authorize bans. Tennessee laws on gun crime and gun violence tend to address acts of violence or criminal acts, not possession for lawful use by the lawabiding.

Respecting the right of the people, the citizens, to keep and bear arms for all lawful purposes from self defense to rabbit hunting to preparation for volunteer military service does not have to be incompatible with regulation with a view to prevent crime or violence; unless, the goal of regulation as evidenced by the ban in Chicago or the near-prohibitory regulations in DC and NYC (or UK for that matter) is regulation to prevent private ownership period. Naaman Brown (talk) 21:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed edit to Introduction

Currently, the Introduction says the Second Amendment "prevented the Federal government from changing the law regarding the right to keep and bear arms". I want to change that to say "prohibits federal, state or local abridgment of the right to keep and bear arms". I want Ed, or another admin, to make this change. I was about to do so when FP was reimposed. SMP0328. (talk) 18:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I would rather say it protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms", which is the wording of the amendment. Because there are different interpretations of what the amendment means, we would have to qualify any other definition. Also, the expression "prevented the Federal government from changing the law" is ambiguous". TFD (talk) 19:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
How about: prohibits federal, state or local abridgment of an individuals right to keep and bear arms"71.184.184.238 (talk) 19:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
That's basically my proposed edit and it reflects the recent ruling in McDonald v. Chicago. I have no objection to the word "individual" be added. SMP0328. (talk) 19:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good, accurate, and up to date. North8000 (talk) 19:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
We would have to say "has been interpreted by the U. S. Supreme Court". Neutrality "requires that all majority views and significant minority views published by reliable sources be presented fairly". TFD (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Please propose language that you would support.71.184.184.238 (talk) 20:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
How about this: The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the Second Amendment to prohibit any federal, state or local abridgment of the right to keep and bear arms. SMP0328. (talk) 20:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
How about, "The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms". The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted this right to be an individual right which cannot be restricted by federal, state or local government." TFD (talk) 21:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Now how do we get that put into the Introduction? SMP0328. (talk) 22:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I can live with the last version above but think that "ruled" would be better then "interpreted". "The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms". The U.S. Supreme Court has RULED this right to be an individual right which cannot be restricted by federal, state or local governments." 71.184.184.238 (talk) 10:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I like "ruled", although, like the anon, I have no objection to "interpreted". The only issue left to be decided is if one editor is entitled to a veto over this proposed edit. SMP0328. (talk) 16:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it would be extreme WP:OR to say "...an individual right which cannot be restricted by federal, state or local government." That wording would go vastly too far considering the fact that the standard is that most gun control laws have been deemed "presumptively lawful" by the Supreme Court. Their words are "presumptively lawful" not: "cannot be restricted" (which means just the opposite). The only individual right that is granted by Heller (...and McDonald I guess, pending the results in the future of the remanding.) Read the the court's holding, quoting from the Supreme Courts exact words: "In sum, we hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense." Wording suitable for introduction could say that the states still have their militia rights protected plus individuals (under federal and State's laws) now have an individual right of handgun possession,,,in the home...for the purpose of immediate self-defense. That wording would be accurate and backed up by the court precedence these last two years. Saying or implying that any and all "individual rights" are protected would be hugely overreaching based on the reality. SaltyBoatr get wet 01:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

What if the word "individual" was removed? SMP0328. (talk) 01:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I think that the only thing that McDonald has done at this point is to remand to the 7th Circuit to resolve the conflict. To say much more until the 7th Circuit Court makes a ruling would be WP:CRYSTAL. We need to see what the 7th Circuit says. SaltyBoatr get wet 02:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
The Court in McDonald said that the Second Amendment was incorporated. The remand was for the Seventh Circuit to rule on whether Chicago's gun ban violated Heller. I'm not asking for anyone to predict the future. I'm requesting the Introduction be changed to reflect that the Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment applies to the States via the Fourteenth Amendment. SMP0328. (talk) 02:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
The decision of McDonald v. Chicago was that the fourteenth amendment applied to the second amendment. Saltboatr, do you have a good source that summarizes the decision of DC v Heller? We need to see that the RS that it considers gun laws to be "presumptively lawful" but we also need to explain what it says about the right. TFD (talk) 02:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I recommend reading this article[59] in the UCLA Law Review which describes the experience in federal courts of the court cases that have been ruled upon in the post-Heller time period. It describes that a common thread in most of the rulings is the focus on the "presumtively lawful" words from Heller. SaltyBoatr get wet 21:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I have questions about these proposals.--Hauskalainen (talk) 02:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

1. (to SMP0328.)--Hauskalainen (talk) 02:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

1.1 Why do you want the current wording to be changed? --Hauskalainen (talk) 02:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
1.2 On what grounds do you want it to embrace the States or sub-entities of the States?--Hauskalainen (talk) 02:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
(Surely the States can change the law. A Constitution is merely a founding document for any entity and sets out what the entity can and cannot do. In the case the entity was "The United States of America" embodied in 3 different entities, the Congress, the Presidency and the Federal Courts and it said that the Federal government could not infringe (=interfere in) the rights of the people in the states to have guns. SCOTUS has determined that it was an individual right that the 2nd Amendment was referring to, but this was NOT the grant of a NEW right. The right (at the time of the writing of the 2nd Amendment) was an existing right in common law and it could be legally changed, by consent of the people, but only through their representatives in the States and not by the Federal government.) --Hauskalainen (talk) 02:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
The Constitution can only be legally changed via the amendment process. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment applies to State and local governments to the same extent as it applies to the federal government. So now the right to keep and bear arms can not be changed by the States any more than it can be by the federal government. I want the Introduction to reflect this fact. SMP0328. (talk) 17:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

2. (to TFD) --Hauskalainen (talk) 02:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

2.1 Why do you think that the phrase "prevented the Federal government from changing the law" is ambiguous?--Hauskalainen (talk) 02:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
2.2 Why do you think that "it protects the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" would NOT need any qualification?--Hauskalainen (talk) 02:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
(the Second Amendment was giving a direct statement to the Federal powers that its powers did not extend to the infringement of the rights of the people to bear arms. The "protection" was only against infringement by the Federal Government. The powers of the States are laid down in their own constitutions and many I presume will have wide powers to set limits on the right to bear arms and have surely have used that power many times to set out licensing and carry rules for example.) --Hauskalainen (talk) 02:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
2.1 Because a) it is the legislative branch of government that changes the laws (usually government applies to the executive branch) and it is not clear what law it is prevented from changing: does it mean no change may be made to the D. C. handgun law?
We could change it to say "prevented the United States Congress from passing any law that could limit the rights of a person to have arms." That is the effect of the Second Amendment is it not? It did not give any postive rights, only the negative one of not having any existing arms rights removed by the Federal government - presumably the U.S. Congress and the presidency combined.--Hauskalainen (talk) 13:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
2.2 The writers of the Bill of Rights thought it needed no qualification. (The McDonald case makes it clear that the amendment restricts the power of state and local governments as well.)

TFD (talk) 04:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

3. (to TFD--Hauskalainen (talk) 02:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

3.1 Where did the SCOTUS say the right cannot be restricted by State government?--Hauskalainen (talk) 02:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
3.1 See McDonald. TFD (talk) 04:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
(You say "The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted this right to be an individual right which cannot be restricted by federal, state or local government." I need to understand the basis for your believing this. Surely it depends on the constitutional powers of the State concerned.)--Hauskalainen (talk) 02:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

4. (to SaltyBoatr--Hauskalainen (talk) 02:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

4.1 Are you arguing that "prevented the Federal government from changing the law" (the current wording) is any way inaccurate or inadequate? If so in which way? --Hauskalainen (talk) 02:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

(SCOTUS has held that the States' laws are "presumptively lawful" because the States are presumed to be able to change the laws in their territories just as Parliament in the UK or Canada or any other country can change their own laws operable in their territories without hindrance. The Heller decision was made because DC is a special district under the Federal government and not belonging to any state. It was thus caught by the 2nd Amendment which restricts the power of the Federal government to do what the DC district authorities did. The States generally are not in this situation.--Hauskalainen (talk) 02:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Hauskalainen, you need to read up on the 14th Amendment. It's two major points are that states cannot take away the rights of a US citizen and the states must uphold due process requirements. The right to arms has now been recognizes as a right belonging to every US citizen. Neither the federal government not the states, and certainly no local municipalities can deprive a US citizen of his rights, except as a punishment by conviction in a court of law. (I know that this standard is breached every day but it is the standard the 14th requires) Unlike England, in the US all high government officials of the states and federal government serve contingent upon giving a voluntary oath to uphold the constitution. Absent the oath they can't hold office. This oath is a voluntary contract entered into by all these government officials to uphold that constitution, UPON PAIN OF PERJURY. Perjury is a felony. Failure to uphold the individual right to arms is now a felony offense. 71.184.184.238 (talk) 04:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

When you really boil it down, besides the individual cases that they ruled on, the decisions made the following determinations:

McDonald:

  • That the 2nd and Heller restrict State and local governments in the same way that they restrict federal government. Skip trying to say what that is, that would hopelessly mire down any attempt to list the salient points of McDonald.

Heller:

  • That the 2nd grants an individual right (in addition to any group right)
Protects! not grants.71.184.184.238 (talk) 12:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
  • That the operative clause of the 2nd is not affected by the preamble
  • That some types of gun laws are permissible, and, importantly, the examples that it gave. Not that the examples are a part of the operative clause, but they are certainly indicative and influential.

The Supreme court creates THE binding interpretation, it is not just "another opinion". North8000 (talk) 12:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC) {{editprotected}}

I suggest we change the introductory sentence back to the last stable version (prior to the latest flurry of edits). The stable version of the introductory sentence is: "The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects a right to keep and bear arms.[1] " (last week[http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&oldid=371476979) the same as December 2009[http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&oldid=333881083, six months stable). The version in place was not placed there by consensus, where the stable version was agreed by consensus. SaltyBoatr get wet 20:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
This is one of the rare moments that I agree with Salty. The current 1st sentence is badly written, and the one Salty is suggesting is well written. North8000 (talk) 20:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I would rather have the version discussed above, instead of the current version or the old version. 71.184.184.238 (talk) 21:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I've restored the earlier version. Please continue to discuss the proposed new version and request an edit if consensus develops. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Two years ago, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. ___ (2008), we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense, and we struck down a District of Columbia law that banned the possession of handguns in the home.The city of Chicago (City) and the village of Oak Park, a Chicago suburb, have laws that are similar to the District of Columbia’s, but Chicago and Oak Park argue that their laws are constitutional because the Second Amendment has no application to the States. We have previously held that most of the provisions of the Bill of Rights apply with full force to both the Federal Government and the States. Applying the standard that is well established in our case law, we hold that the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the states."
  2. ^ http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk1ch1.asp Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution/Archive_29&oldid=1171579378"