Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution/Archive 32

This is an archive of past discussions about Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Anyone know what DeConde is supposed to be a reference to

I'm assuming this book http://www.amazon.com/Gun-Violence-America-Struggle-Control/dp/1555534864/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1279670586&sr=1-2

The practice of having two places to go to find what is referenced is in my opinion bad practice. Anyway if someone can confirm the book above is the book referenced then it should be added to the list of references at the bottom of the article. Did I mention I didn't like that system?71.184.184.238 (talk) 00:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

@AnonIP, Actually, no, you didn't object back when it was done. You and now I agree about the footnoting installed unilaterally by Andy85719 in June. This is a situation where the present style of editing by revert war fails us. We should really be discussing the changes so that we can keep Andy85719's style of footnoting up to date. SMP0328, I take it that you like Andy85719 style of footnoting, or is that still true? One big regret I have that was lost was that Andy85719 stripped out the URL convenience links that used to be part of the footnotes. I know this suggestion will go over like a lead balloon, but the simplest way to fix the footnote mess now is to back to a stable version prior to Andy85719's disaster. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 12:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

SaltyBoatr's request for full protection

SaltyBoatr has requested that the article be fully protected on grounds of there being a "dispute". All editors who have posted on this talk page should place a response as to SaltyBoatr's request before the request is acted upon. SMP0328. (talk) 02:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Obstructionist bull$%%^. Salty can't get his way and out of spite wants the article frozen.71.184.184.238 (talk) 10:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

If you have a problem about my behavior, the article page is not the place to discuss it, use the appropriate forum. Discuss the article, not the editor. I am willing to agree to use WP:Dispute Resolution procedure to resolve this article dispute. Are you? SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 12:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Salty, I don't see where there is specific dispute. If you feel otherwise, could you say what you feel that it is? North8000 (talk) 12:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

There are a variety of issues, that add up. The biggest is the rewording of the introduction to reflect one POV as the only POV, and specifically the removal of the word "lawful" which is intended to promote the minor insurrectionist POV. Going back to an ambiguous intro would fix that. This problem in the introduction is amplified by the recent removal of the passage sourced to the Garry Will's 1995 New York Review of Books paper describing how the modern militia is not considered "well regulated" using the definition in place in 1789, (with the modern militia groups being insurrectionist). This problem warrants a POV tag to alert readers to this talk page discussion. (Is there a good reason not to alert readers?) Also beyond the introduction, there is a problem where this article in response to Heller was re-written with revisionist history. I have no problem with the fact that in recent decades that the operative point of view in the courts and politics has shifted towards the "Standard model" viewpoint. But I do see a NPOV violation when the article is being cleansed of NPOV reporting that other viewpoints even existed, and that the Standard Model viewpoint was not always the operative viewpoint of the Second Amendment. The court can make history, but the court cannot change history. The article is written as if the court changed the history. We should restore the deleted passage that describes the three models of Second Amendment interpretation. Ditto with the revisionist viewpoint about ancient English history, per sourcing the viewpoint was not always the natural right of insurrection. One major viewpoint about that is that it emerged anew in the 1600's, with the adherents just claiming it to be ancient.

That said, asking again, do editors agree to follow WP:Dispute Resolution procedures? SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 13:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

This looks more like 5-10 complex topics to me, more a call for some orderly, consensus article development, rather than resolvable by or reduc-able to 1 or 2 dispute resolutions. I think most of us could agree to keep the lead short and somewhat vague. That would also include you not injecting selected coloring / occluding details. My own agenda is just to make sure that the influential Supreme court findings get covered as such, not lost in the current needle in the haystack situation. That whole English history / natural rights thing looks too huge and complex (and outside of my field of knowledge) for me to even go near and so I haven't. When I offered to "mediate" that particular topic, I was really just planning to just guide the current discussion into chrystalizing what the main questions were with respect to article content and then trying to marshall a discussion to move it forward. To me the topic looks too big and complex to be handled in a typical dispute resolution. North8000 (talk) 14:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

You could show your good faith by making that "keep the lead short and somewhat vague" edit now. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 17:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm with you 100% on that. But I'm not sure how to do that. I think that both "sides" have some problems with what's in the first paragraph. But if we're talking about making it shorter, the second paragraph is full of secondary "off the main track" stuff. I'll give it a try in the talk section in a few minutes. North8000 (talk) 17:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

My two cents is that this article spends entirely too much time being protected essentially because a single user disagrees with everyone. That being said, it's not a blanket for people to start edit-warring, but I think 3R policies will suffice rather than full-on protection. I agree with North that there is way too much english history and not enough current history. The problem is that the article reflects the previously unsettled arguments that mostly no longer apply. We should edit it to state the current status in the lead, and then have a section on previous controversy or some such topic that covers these things. Giving a lot of space to "standard mode" type issues no longer makes sense, SCOTUS has said it protects an individual right. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 18:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I agreeNorth8000 (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

@AliveFreeHappy Are you speaking as an administrator, or as an involved editor? I find it of concern that your emphasis is on disagreement between parties, and not on WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. The case we see here is that the weight of personal opinion is one thing, and the weight of WP:RS is another thing. This problem would be solved if we could focus on sources, avoiding original research and meticulously sticking with a fair balance based on the neutrality balance seen in the full body of the sources. Trouble being for the last two months, you see editors fixated on WP:BATTLE,and conversation quickly goes to we all disagree with a single user. (like you just did) No, actually I am not arguing for a single user. I am looking at sourcing and saying that it doesn't match with the personal opinion of the editors here. This seems like an issue of editor Confirmation bias. Also, you wrote "previously unsettled arguments". What is that? We still have all these books prior to 2008. Are we to burn the books because of the Supreme Court? SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 20:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't go back far enough here to have seen any SPECIFIC sourcing objections raised, if indeed any have. But in the area that I have seen specifics, and and I indicated previously, I believe that it was clear that you were misquoting and misapplying WP:NPOV. North8000 (talk) 21:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I am still interested in hearing AFH's answer to my questions. The portion of NPOV I am thinking of is: "Editors must write articles from a neutral point of view, representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias." Repeatedly, some editors making edits here in the last two months have argued that somehow the Supreme Court negates some significant views seen in the sourcing. That arguments seems to violate the policy wording all significant views. Put in other terms, the court can make history, but the court cannot change history. Worse, the courts have solidly interpreted Heller to allow widespread gun regulations outside the home, and the insurrectionist viewpoint that certain editors here are advocating is fringe in that light. Show me sourcing that indicates that much weight should be given to the insurrectionist viewpoint. A few specific complaints: The deletion of the sourced content that the insurrectionist modern militia movement are not considered to be "well regulated". Also, the undue emphasis placed on the insurrectionary viewpoint read by editor interpretation of Blackwell's and Story's primary written words as "truth"; while at the same time deletion of the contrary POV seen in sourcing. Also, the bury of the tradition of militia duty evolving into a right to have arms, that is a MAJOR point of view reaching the level of dogma, and we have yet to receive an answer to our request for sourcing of the assertion of the "ancient right of insurrection" thesis. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 22:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

With respect to being the legal instrument that the 2A is, the Supreme court is not a "viewpoint" of the current reality, it CREATES the current reality. Those other things that you're talking about I've not seen debated in the last few weeks here (which is long as I've been here) so I don't see how they relate to a current discussion of locking up the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

How much space do we need to reserve for "crazy talk". Yet again the US Supreme Court has stated that the militia based theory is "worthy of the mad hatter" - i.e. its "crazy talk".71.184.184.238 (talk) 22:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The issue SB is that we need to appropriately write the article so that these POV's that we need to included have proper weight. When the 2A was unsettled, it was proper to give large weight to various opinions on what it meant. Now that scotus has ruled, the previous opinions about what it means don't have the same weight. The article shouldn't be stuffed with info about how the 2A doesn't apply to individuals for example. It can say that there was a large group of people who thought it didn't apply to individuals, but scotus has ruled otherwise. Laying out huge sections intending to show that it's only militia, or that bear arms only means military services, or any other arguments that have been settled is undue weight. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 18:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

@AliveFreeHappy Are you speaking as an administrator, or as an involved editor? Also, I am confused about what you are saying about "unsettled", because this seems like you are saying that one point of view is now settled. What is your sourcing of that claim? 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. If the right includes both a militia based component and a self protection within the home component, why should we be ignoring the militia viewpoint? Also it appears you misunderstand me, and I am not arguing against giving coverage to the recent individual right component established in 2008, nor am I arguing for "showing that it's only militia". Instead I am hoping we can say that the court believe that then, and this now. Do you have any sourcing that say the Second Amendment no longer protects the states militia? SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 22:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I am NOT saying there is no militia component, nor have I ever suggested such a thing. I merely pointed out that those who have argued that the 2A is purely militia ( and they are numerous in this article) are now basically in a flat-earth state. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 22:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

This raises the question of whether the article should be written about present day, or about the historical progression of the Second Amendment. For instance, it would be relevant to describe how the viewpoints on the Second Amendment have evolved over time. We should give coverage to the emergence of the Standard Model theory, and not treat that theory as if it was always in existence. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 00:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't it cover both? And shouldn't it be clear which is which? The current version puts the "models" discussion about what the 2A might mean over what the court says it does mean. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 01:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The article should say what the Standard model is, and it should say that the Supreme Court did not accept the model, but then that in 2008 it did accept the model. The models still are real viewpoints regardless of what the Supreme Court says they believe. The Supreme court doesn't trump NPOV policy. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 01:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say they aren't points of view, the question is how much space is devoted to theories that are contrary to the law of the land. They don't carry the same weight that they did when the issue was unsettled. Prior to the 2A they were essentially a variety of opinions on what they thought the law meant. Now they are intresting historical footnotes about what people thought the law meant. You'll find such dust-ups in the history of many legal issues, but you won't notice much space given to such disagreements in any of the other amendment articles, even though such disagreements did previously exist. In fact a perusal of the other amendment articles gives us a pretty good guideline for how to proceed. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 01:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Decouple

Is it possible to decouple the various issues currently under dispute? It would be nice to have a brief bulleted list of the items and then try to pick them off one by one as much as possible. It may be that some are less contentious than others and can be resolved. I realize that some are inextricably intertwined, but it seems to me that there must be some way to make progress. To that end I've started a brief list.

Individual rights
Meaning of "bear arms"
Meaning of "well regulated militia"
Significance of recent court decisions.
English History

Feel free to edit it directly or discuss below, including of course rejecting the whole idea of decoupling outright. It won't hurt my feelings. ;-) AliveFreeHappy (talk) 20:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

This is probably OR or synthesis or contrary to some other wiki policy BUT

It is interesting to see the Roman influence in England long after the Roman Empire (at least the Western Roman Empire) became dust.

The "hundreds" referenced in early English texts are probably militia groups directly descending from the Roman "Centuries" while the "tithe" probably refers to militia groups of around 10 men - tithe was probably an early spelling of "tenth", as in one tenth of a hundred (Century).

Roman militias was composed of Roman citizens who were expected to provide their own arms. Militia troops in general provided their own "personal" arms and armor in whatever age they existed and in whatever country they existed.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O27-tithe.html - tithe adj. (arch.) tenth OE.; sb. tenth part of annual produce paid to the Church XII; tenth part XVI. OE. tēoða, contr. of teogoða, ME. tiʒ(e)þe, tīþe; see TENTH Hence tithe vb. OE. tēoðian, teogoðian grant a tithe of. So tithing (-ING1) church tithe; company orig. of ten householders in the system of frankpledge.71.184.184.238 (talk) 01:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Salty you are now WAY PAST a 3rr violation

Please cease and desist in pushing your DISCREDITED POV! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.184.238 (talk) 02:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

If you're going to make such a claim, it's helpful to provide diffs to backup your assertion. That way others can quickly check for themselves to see if it's true. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 02:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you check how many times Salty has either deleted material or changed material in the article within the last 24 hours "with intervening edits by other posters." BTW: I provided the backup you asked for.71.184.184.238 (talk) 02:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Merely deleting or changing material does not create a 3R violation. If you have a specific complaint, please make it. If you expect others to research it for you, you're not likely to get much support.

YES IT DOES when it happens 4 or more times in a 24 hour period with intervening posts by other editors. Look it up!

Re the backup - the sources you gave were only primary sources which cannot be used to create an opinion such as you put in the article. Primary sources can only be quoted directly in legal cases. The paragraphs you put in arrived at an editorial conclusion based on your reading of the sources. If you can find someone else who says the same in a WP:RS then we can put it in. Otherwise it seems to be WP:OR. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 02:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Primary sources are usable as long as an educated person can interpret the cited material. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources

"A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." It saddens me to see that your education is so lacking that are incapable of interpreting the following without help.

These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

or this

Nor is the right involved in this discussion less comprehensive or valuable: "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!

or even this

That the provision in question applies only to the right to bear arms as a member of the state militia, or some other military organization provided for by law, is also apparent from the second amendment to the federal Constitution, which says: "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 infringed." Here, also, the right of the people to keep and bear arms for their security is preserved, and the manner of bearing them for such purpose is clearly indicated to be as a member of a well-regulated militia, or some other military organization provided for by law.71.184.184.238 (talk) 02:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Revised Lead

Feel free to edit in the marked area.

- - - Beginning of Editable Section - - -

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights reads "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 infringed." The Second Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. The U.S. Supreme Court made influential rulings and interpretations of this amendment in 2008 and 2010, the first time since 1940. This Court ruled that this right is not based on membership in a militia and is an individual right. It also ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governmental authority to the same same extent that it limits federal authority. ^[1] An ordinance, banning handguns in the home, was found to violate this Amendment and was struck down. The Supreme Court also stated that it's ruling was not to be taken as an indication that all firearm restrictions are unconstitutional. North8000 (talk) 18:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

- - - End of Editable Section - - -

North8000 (talk) 18:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

That is pretty good, thank you very much. Technically, the Supreme Court in Heller affirmed Parker v. District of Columbia that the DC ordinance was in violation of the Second Amendment. In the case of McDonald, the Supreme Court did not rule that the Chicago ordinance was in violation of the Second Amendment. What the SCOTUS did was to hold that the circuit court had used the wrong standard (vis a vis Incorporation) and the case was remand back to the circuit court for re-trial. That re-trial has not happened yet, so at present, just one gun law has been deemed invalid. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 21:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Technically you're right about the Chicago law. But immediately after the McDonald decision, the Chicago City council replaced the law that the Supreme Court ruled on. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I changed it to what I think is for the better. Salty will disagree. It was unclear if I was supposed to change the text or follow up the above text with a new version. To North - if I was not supposed to change your proposed text please revert to your original and I will add my proposed language after youes.71.184.184.238 (talk) 23:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I intended that editors just change the text, within that "editable" section. North8000 (talk) 23:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello 71.184...... In my draft I described what what the court meant by "individual right" (whatever the right specific is, it is not affected by service/ non-service in a militia) without actually using that word to try to avoid opening a can of worms for the lead. I couldn't find a way to write an individual right sentence without being faced with the dilemma with the following dilemma....the sentence will inevitably look like this: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX is an individual right, and then "XXXXXXXX would need to be a definition of the right, which is still both unclear, and would be a subject of debate, and too big to tackle in the lead. My own version of XXXXXXX "rights, whatever they may be" was very awkward sounding but still a good attempt at summarizing the "individual right" finding which did not define the right, just that it was not dependent on milita use. Not sure how to deal with that, maybe with the following change, it will be cool with everybody. Of cours that all just in my humble opinion.

Your "exercisable by all." phrase is not correct, because the court not only did not say that, but gave an example of bans against certain individuals which their ruling did not affect. I'm planning on taking those three words out, and then see what folks (including Salty) think about it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I can see the issue of exercisable by all and don't object to its removal. As for the unconnected with service in the militia, that is straight out of Heller. If Salty doesn't like it, he can take it up with the Supreme Court. As for the rights limitations, something like. "while the Supreme Court has ruled that the right is not unlimited, what the limits of that right are has not been settled" might work.71.184.184.238 (talk) 02:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that Salty was already OK with the "unconnected" And I think that your new sentence is very informative an unlikely to be disputed. This is a working draft that nobody owns....I just organized it a little.....feel free to put it in.

Salty?

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

In there are no objections I'll replace the lead with this later today. If there are, we'll noodle on this some more. I do have several objections with the current lead, but those would become a moot point. North8000 (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks pretty reasonable as an intro to me. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I put it in. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that is an improvement. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 21:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

null edits to keep this record visible longer North8000 (talk) 12:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)North8000 (talk) 01:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Anything Else?

I did a flurry of activity trying to move forward on a reasonably-acceptable-to-y'all lead. I think that the new lead makes my previous new section idea a moot point. I don't have any plans to try to do anything else here, although I'd be happy to help if there is a hot topic or something where y'all would like me to try to do the same thing. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Your work is much appreciated. If you are asking for a suggestion of things here needing help: The massive re-structure of the footnotes by Andy85719 in June, splitting the footnotes into three sections (coupled with trimming out the footnoted quotations of the sources) has caused a big mess. Fixing and checking the footnotes is a big task which needs help. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 13:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see this until just now. I haven't figured out the current structure yet. North8000 (talk) 10:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Salty there is a 3rr violation being filed against you

for edit warring71.184.184.238 (talk) 14:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You can respond here

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:AN/EW#User:SaltyBoatr_reported_by_User:71.184.184.238_.28Result:_.29 71.184.184.238 (talk) 14:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Oxford Dictionaries Online is not the Oxford English Dictionary

collapsing this discussion, as the problem in the article is now fixed

Can we discuss this edit[1] by SMP0328? It is marked as "minor" and it has the edit summary "Minor fixes; added two wikilinks". Yet the edit makes the false claim that the website "www.oxforddictionaries.com" is the Oxford English Dictionary. Really? There is a huge difference between the two! The OED is a massive 20 volume dictionary which is the definitive reference work on historical usages of the English language.

Also, this edit by SMP0328 was made without any discussion on the talk page. And, if he had checked in on the talk page he would have learned that this passage is in the middle of an edit war[2] by 172.184..., involving the deletion of the passage source to two reliable sourced books describing the analysis of the linguistic origins of the term "bear arms" using the OED and the insertion of primary research by 172.184... drawn from the online dictionary describing the modern usage of the word. Also, the original research claims this as the definition of "bear arms" when actually it is the definition of the word "bear".

(After we fix the error inserted by SMP0328.) Could we resume a discussion of the merits of the passage describing the linguistic origins of the term "bear arms" which was sourced to the Spitzer book ISBN 1576073475 (pages 6,7) and the Wills book ISBN 0684870266 (pages 256-7)? Are these unreliable sources? SaltyBoatr^getwet 14:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Oxford Dictionaries Online is the Internet version of the Oxford English Dictionary. Read this!. SMP0328. (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, quoting from your link "Oxford Dictionaries Online is Oxford’s innovative modern English dictionary and language reference service. " "Oxford Dictionaries" is not the same as the Oxford English Dictionary. The key difference is that it is a "modern English" dictionary. The true Oxford English Dictionary gives attention to obsolete English, and it gives attention to how the English language has changed over time. The Oxford English Dictionary is a giant 20 volume dictionary, and it too is available on the Internet at the URL http://dictionary.oed.com/. Access requires a subscription, and where I live my public library gives free access with your library card. Many other libraries give free access. Paying attention to the historical usage of the meaning of "bear arms" during the time of the drafting of the Second Amendment is important, and the OED says that the definition "to bear arms: to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight." dates to usage example from 1795. Deleting this historical and substituting the modern definition of "carry guns" and claiming it comes from the OED is plain sloppy. We are required to give a balance view of the two major viewpoints, and this article section has had the "military service" meaning scrubbed. This POV imbalance warrants a POV-section tag. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 21:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

So we should consider the OED as authoritative, but not the SCOTUS? Also, are there any other definitions for "bear arms" in the OED? Finally, stop trying/threatening to add POV tags to the article; it's not productive. SMP0328. (talk) 22:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The meaning with respect to the application of the 2A, a US legal instrument, has been determined by the US Supreme Court. It doesn't opine on the reality, it creates it. While sidebar discussions of it's meanings in other places and at other times and under various other opinions is also nice, such discussions are just that. North8000 (talk) 12:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Learn the difference between Obiter dictum and Ratio decidendi. Scalia's discussion of the meaning of "bear arms" is not the holding, it is merely dicta. No, the dicta of the Supreme Court does not actually determine or create reality. Instead, just the holding of the court determines legal precedent for future cases, so your point about creating reality really only applies to things going forward. Considering that WP:CRYSTALBALL prevents us from predicting much into the future, it is hard to understand what point you are trying to make. My point here is that there is a great body of work written about the history of the Second Amendment which is unaffected. We can and should read those books, and no, those books are not invalidated by the SCOTUS. Now, as always, we should scrub out the making of political arguments from the article. Some of the books describe political arguments. We should continue to neutrally, fairly and objectively describe what we read and try not to editorialize. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 14:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

So, for the understanding of the USA legal meaning of the 2A, a US legal instrument, we should use your selection from amongst British dictionaries (even rejecting the on-line Oxford dictionary) rather than the U.S. Supreme Court?North8000 (talk) 14:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the meaning of keep and bear arms section: Do other editors agree that we should fix the erroneous sentence (presently footnote 114)? SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 14:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Salty, at least by titles and structures,currently there is no section on the meaning of "to keep and bear Arms." There is only a section on scholarly commentary on "to keep and bear arms". That structure is a combined POV invitation (i.e. "pick a scholar who espouses your opinion and put in their/your opinion) plus a recipe for excluding the US legally authoritative definitions of the terms. If we really want to fix it, step one would be to move the "to keep and bear arms" section out from under the "scholarly commentary" section. Until then, who knows what the standard for this section is. We could include 10 different dictionary definitions since they're all "scholarly commentary" which is the only criteria of this section. If there is ANY standard for inclusion in an article on a US legal instrument, your idea of removing a definition consistent with the US Supreme court opinion and introducing a definition that conflicts with it would be introducing rather than correcting an error North8000 (talk) 14:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC) as participant

I am referring to this section[3]. It is an error to call the dictionary OxfordDictionaries.com the Oxford English Dictionary. Frankly, this kind of error is embarrassing. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 22:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the North8000 point, no, per WP:NPOV significant points of view must be included fairly without bias. Perhaps it is time we check with the NPOV noticeboard. Again, and again I see editors saying that opinion of the court somehow trumps Wikipedia policy. No, I believe it does not. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 22:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Salty, your saying "I see editors saying that opinion of the court somehow trumps Wikipedia policy" is a silly strawdog misrepresentation of what we've been saying, and I find it to be very disingenuous, . What I have been saying is in essence that, with respect to the legal meaning of the 2A, a US legal instrument, the US Supreme Court CREATES the reality which Wikipedia is covering. There is no conflict, no "trumping", they are two separate things; one creates it, the other covers what has been created. North8000 (talk) 23:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not disingenuous. Can you appreciate that when I hear editors speaking of "the reality" like you just did, that I am reminded of the times that editors come here to this politically charged article speaking of "the truth"? This concern could be put to ease if we were instead discussing what the reliable sourcing says. I have read a lot about this topic, and am prepared to discuss it. In the mean time, we turn circles talking past each other because we apparently are seeing different versions of reality.

Specifically about your assertion at to "the legal meaning" which you seem to view as something fixed and settled. When I read sourcing[4][5], I see that the experts observe that the SCOTUS has left the core aspects of "the legal meaning" unclear, most notably the standard of review which is a critical question. Also, the question of exactly which "individuals" have this new protection of a right is undetermined. Worse, you seem to think that McDonald has settled something. No, McDonald actually did nothing more that remand the case back to the 7th Circuit for a retrial. That retrial has not yet happened. If we were discussing sourcing, we could be sorting these questions out. Can we start discussing sourcing now?

We're going in circles here. IMHO it appears that you are asserting that that the only thing that Heller did was set aside one gun law, and that the only thing that McDonald did was to remand one gun law. Does this correctly summarize what you have been asserting? If so, we at least know what you are asserting.

Just to clarify, when I said "disingenuous, I was referring to badly misstating/misquoting what we are arguing into a form that was absurd and silly sounding. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

No, your summary of what I am asserting that these sources say is not correct. By the way, I am not willing to discuss or debate with you on this talk page what I personally believe. Specifically here, I see that a number of editors using edit war tactics, have stripped out the coverage in this article of what we see written in reliable sources, which is that during the late 18th Century that the term "bear arms" had the predominate meaning in context of military service. Certainly the Oxford English Dictionary says this. Editors, with apparent political intent, substituted the modern English meaning found in a modern English dictionary which is "carry arms". I don't dispute that the modern English meaning is "carry arms". It is just false to say that the Oxford English Dictionary (which gives coverage of obsolete English usages) says this. Presently, the article is saying something that is plain false.

Also, I see that editors here have repeatedly tried to interpret Scalia's dicta for meaning about the "bear arms". This interpretation of primary court documents is notoriously difficult. I see that Scalia's reasoning in Heller pretty closely matches the reasoning seen in the Cramer and Olson paper, where they focus on the few notable exceptions in the hundreds of usages of "bear arms" seen in 18th Century writings. They acknowledge that most of the usages were seen in context of military services, but because there are a few exceptions seen, that therefore we can conclude that a "self defense" 18th Century meaning is possible and preferable. There are other authors (Uviller, Merkel, Wills, and others) that criticize this method of focusing on the rare exceptions in the language usage, and giving these rare exceptions more weight than the common usage. I am arguing that we craft the "meaning of bear arms" section to give coverage to both these points of view seen. We can mention prominently, using neutral phrasing, that in 2008 the Supreme Court chose one of the these points of view seen. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 16:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Salty, by a preponderance of observations, including a huge amount of exchanges of the last few weeks, I have decided that IMHO you are trying to get to a POV'd article rather than being sincere about trying to get to an accurate article. And that you are using WP mechanisms (especially WP:VER, but secondarily misquoting/misapplying WP:NPOV) as tools in a POV quest rather than as intended. What I find most telling is that each time we get close to a core sincere question, you change the subject and start throwing flak around instead. Two recent examples were when an editor made a change because he thought that YOU wanted the change, you accused him of edit warring while refusing to say whether your were for or against the change. This is because you would have been forced to admit that you were accusing him of edit warring for making a change that YOU wanted, and that he made it because he felt that you wanted it. And, you have been trying to suppress coverage of the Supreme Court Heller and McDonald findings by implying that the dicta from these cases are not relevant, but when I tried to get to the heart of this core and important question you changed the subject. I am bolding this because, although I anticipate continuing to have continuing civil communications with you in this article, this is my "swan song" (= I am giving up) regarding trying to have sincere in depth discussions with you. Again, I still look forward to working you on a civil but more superficial level. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to annoy you. I take policy here seriously. WP:V says that we should be using reliable sourcing. I am feeling impatient too, when my requests to discuss reliable sourcing are met with refusal. Also, the policy WP:NPOV requires: "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." When this talk page, and this article, falls under the "viewpoint prevalence" of the editors as has been occurring here, we violate policy. That is the reason we must be discussion the reliable sources. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 18:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that "disappointed" would be a better word tahn "annoyed". I had hopes for better; a joint effort with you toward the higher calling of an accurate, informative article. North8000 (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

In the mean time, this article laughingly calls OxfordDictionaries.com the Oxford English Dictionary. This is embarrassing. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 14:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Blatant POV pushing by SaltyBoatr

Once again I have had to delete a piece of blatant POV pushing by SaltyBoatr. His re-telling in the history section is straight from the Malcolm book. It is not a mainstream view as he claims. No major English historian (by which I mean a historian based in England) accepts this nonsense. He does not accredit his retelling to Malcolm but this is what ´that telling is. The mainstream view is, on the contrary to what he claims, that English historians believe that the right was a natural adjunct to the right to life in a world fraught with danger and little regard for the nicety of law which did not even begin to get formalized until Norman times. All this stuff about Statute of Winchester and the like is pure baloney intended to impress upon us the Malcolm view that the right developed over time. The connection between the Second Amendment and English law begins naturally with a discussion about the Bill if Rights in England and the standard view of history and not the revisionist views of Joyce Lee Malcolm.

If Salty really wishes to help Prof. Malcolm, he would do well to stop pushing her clearly personal and quirky views. It draws attention to them and could result in her disregard of historical documents as well as archaeological evidence of widespread arms ownership in the dark ages becoming much more well known and destroy her credibility in the eyes of mainstream historians.--Hauskalainen (talk) 02:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Accusation of POV pushing is incivil, especially an accusation as unfounded as this. That the 2A is founded upon the very old English tradition of militia duty is VERY widespread in reliable sourcing. (Explained a dozen times on this talk page, see above.) It is not just Joyce Lee Malcolm's book, but her book has been VERY widely accepted and influential. Notice that Hauskalainen objects solely to Malcolm while at the same time reverting[6] text sourced to (16) sixteen highly reliable books, (including the Encylopedia Britanica), only one of these books is authored by Professor Malcolm yet Hauskalainen deleted all sixteen. Hauskalainen should explain this shocking inconsistency in his accusation that someone here is pushing a POV.

We are talking about the American viewpoint of English history here, so I don't understand your limitation to "English historians". It is ironic that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in his book describes Professor Malcolm as being English. That said, can we have this English history section based on a fair balance of the third party secondary sourcing? We have been discussing this for almost two months, and I have provided dozens of these sources and Hauskalainen has provided none. Show your sourcing please. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 13:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring is even more uncivil, and downright criminal when you do it and then blame others such as in your last page freeze request.71.184.184.238 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC).

I know that I am stepping into both a topic and a dispute that I am not knowlegable on (my apologies) but Salty, your main recent edit in this consisted of inserting a huge amount of material en masse, along with an edit summary which gave a justification which is arguable at best. It said that the viewpoint espoused by this large insertion, which others are agueing is fringe, is THE mainstream viewpoint. North8000 (talk) 13:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

BTW I am not here arguing that you are POV pushing, I don't have the knowledge in this section topic to know whether or not you or anyone is doing that. I'm really more saying that your editing approach on this disputed topic is such that it would inevitably get reverted, and thus counterproductive to bringing this to some type of resolution. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Salty's position can be summarized as follows, if it supports gun control its good, if it doesn't support gun control its bad. That's textbook POV push behaviour.71.184.184.238 (talk) 15:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

@North8000 The passage I inserted, is not a passage I wrote. I was instead restoring the long-time stable passage from the English History section that had been developed through editor consensus. See for instance this version from 2009[7]. The version supported by Hauskainen now has been subject to dispute these last two months, and have all the appearances of being his personal research. If he could show us confirmation in reliable secondary sourcing, I could be convinced otherwise. The trouble is that he has been asked for his sources as least a dozen times and he has not yet replied. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 16:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Salty, thanks for that response. I don't have the knowledge on the topic of this section to know what to think about these POV/Source/Content arguments. But IMHO saying that the large block of material came from a 2009 version of the article doesn't change my own thoughts (whatever little my thoughts are worth) when I said "I'm really more saying that your editing approach on this disputed topic is such that it would inevitably get reverted, and thus counterproductive to bringing this to some type of resolution." Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your thoughts, and frankly I agree about this seeming counterproductive. The trouble is that when I attempted to follow Dispute Resolution[8] to resolve this exact dispute, I was refused. Clearly dispute resolution procedures are much preferable to negotiation through reverts, and I remain eager and willing to use WP:DR. Presently, at least, both Hauskalainen and AnonIP are the editors here who have refused DR, not me, see[9] and [10] for their refusals. Do you have suggestions what other options remain to resolve this dispute when the editors I am in disagreement refuse to follow WP:DR? I am open for ideas. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 19:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Dispute resolution only works with those who wish a fair resolution and will then accept it. It doesn't work with those whose only purpose in using it is to get their way, either by hook or by crook, and who will ignore it at the first convenient opportunity.71.184.184.238 (talk) 19:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that at the moment this is too big and complex for wp:dr. If you three would be willing to give it a try, I would be happy to try to organize a dialog & effort to move this forward. Besides my commitment to accuracy above all else, I think that I am dumb enough and uninvolved enough on this whole natural right / British history thing, to approach it as just a dumb moderator/organizer. :-) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Good luck with that. When I tried to help out here, I discovered I belonged to a "cabal" (snort!), by virtue of the fact that I had once left a comment on this talk page 2 years ago and reverted some vandalism. The "cabal" accusations, I notice, have continued unabated. This assumption of bad faith on the part of one editor pretty much discredits the arguments presented, and I'm not happy with the behavior of the others either, for that matter. I'm still trying to figure out, where is this cabal, and how do I join? ~Amatulić (talk) 20:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

@North8000 If you are offering to help, I am curious about your opinion of the disputed text, seen being taken out in this diff[11]. Hauk and I have gone back and forth more than a few times on this passage. I think that this text he deleted is well sourced, and that it pretty fairly describes the neutral POV widely seen in many sources. By the way, this is not text which I authored, but rather long standing text from the article developed by consensus which Hauk deleted and which I am trying to restore. Hauk's view is: (I encourage him speak for himself). But, he has said that he thinks this long standing text from the article is Malcolm's revisionist myth. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 21:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Although I've spent a bunch of time trying to get up to speed on this section, I still don't have the knowledge base to have an opinion on the perspective/accuracy of the material or quality of the sources. But I do have a few thoughts as a participant (not as a debate moderator/organizer). First, as a preface, with the Heller decision making the definition of "militia" less relevant in a 2A discussion, we have to question the overall quantity of "militia definition" coverage that we have in the article, much less a substantial expansion of it. Second, the opening statement "the concept of a universal militia originated....", and it's implied (by placement) claim to be the roots of whatever militias the 2A was referring to is a broad-reaching and controversial claim. Probably would need REALLY solid sourcing, and even then stated as an opinion rather than fact. Third, as an overview, your large insertion is basically a large quantity of material about certain militias in old English history. Without implying anything, the question is why is it in a 2A article? One answer would be to bolster a particular interpretation of the word "militia" for 2A purposes. If so, without alternate history angles also presented, such would be POV, and the juxtaposition into this context (the def for 2A purposes) would be a form of synthesis. North8000 (talk) 12:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

You have expressed some opinions, and asked one question. Answering that question, why is this discussion in the article? The answer is that per policy, we are to read the reliable sourcing, and then we are to fairly represent without bias that sourcing into this article. Check all the sources and the conclusion seems inescapable, the very large majority of this sourcing points to the origin of the Second Amendment coming the the long tradition militia duty in English history. What sourcing says otherwise? Identify it, lets do the policy required balance weight check and then lets include that sourcing too. Unfortunately, ever since the Hausk version got locked in as the stasis version, he seems to have forgotten that on July 8th he asked for time[12] to explain his sources. Now Hausk seems content to sit back, and not explain his sources, and just revert war[13] to protect his favored text. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 13:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I originally intended my question to be one of "what is the relevance of this insertion". But now I've read your response and looked closer. Is the following a correct description of what you are essentially saying?:

The last paragraph of the "English History Section" contains wording that implies a pre-2nd definition of "militia". I (Salty) think that that there is a a majority or significant minority opinion that is contrary to that and feel that it should be covered.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with Hauk that this text is definitely not NPOV. It's malcom-centric, which was a novel interpretation. Yes, lots of people who favor gun control refer to it now, because it suits their political leaning, similar to the issue of quick acceptance of Besellies work. That doesn't make it the main point of view. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

@AFH Wow. Is this your personal opinion? Or, are you speaking from what you have read? In any case, please show us some sourcing for your claim of "novel interpretation" and that "lots of people who favor gun control refer to it now". You seem wildly off base. Do you realize that:

Gun control people dislike the Malcolm book.[14][15]
Pro-gun advocates, blogs and editorialist's generally like and recommend the Malcolm book.[16][17][18][19][20][21]
Antonin Scalia has described the Malcolm book as "an excellent study". ISBN 9780691004006 (pgs 136-137)
This Malcolm book has been highly praised by the National Rifle Association, appearing on their approved reading list for 12 years now.[22][23]
The Malcolm book has been described in reliable sourcing thusly: "(Malcolm's) book was enthusiastically received by American historians, legal commentators, and the gun community. ... Malcolm's thesis has been widely accepted; in some circles it enjoys the status of dogma respecting the English origins of the Second Amendment."
That this Malcolm book was referenced, twice, in the 2008 Heller decision. ([24]pg 19

If I didn't know better I would be tempted to guess that reached your conclusion because of a snap judgement that if SaltyBoatr likes it, then it must be pro-gun control. Here is a situation where I am arguing for a mainstream pro-gun author because that author is solidly accepted as holding a well respected point of view. It shouldn't matter whether you or I like this author. We should be checking the sourcing. I have done this, have you? If your answer is yes, please describe what sourcing you are reading that says this is not the "main point of view". In contrast, Hausk's point of view (which apparently you prefer) has all the appearances of being pure original research. Things could be a lot better around here if editors like stop the WP:BATTLE. Let's limit our discussion of what the sources say. By the way, do you have any thoughts about the sixteen sources deleted[25]by Hausk? Do you think those sources are unreliable? I have asked you a number of questions and I would appreciate direct answers to each. Your answers can help bring this dispute to an end, thanks in advance. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 01:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not think that it is Original Research to say that Malcolm's view of the "developing right" theory is either novel or against the prevailing view. The fact is that Bill of Rights itself says that right to arms was an ancient right and Blackstone described it as an adjunct to the natural right of self defence. Malcolm's argument for doing so is on the spurious ground that no earlier law created the right. She completely misunderstands how rights are achieved in English law. In doing so she has at a stroke, and with no proper foundation, dimsissed Blackstone's view that ie and dismissed the Bill of Rights the evidence that you will see in most archeological museums in England that ordinary people have had arms - spears, arrows, knives, slings for a very long time. Mostly for hunting but also from time to time as instruments of war. I am not aware of any major English historian who has accepted Malcolm's view, but I suspect that is because the history of the right to arms has simply not been an issue in English society or in English history.

Now I turn to the text and the sixteen sources I deleted. These were deleted on the grounds of relevance and WP:Undue. The discussions about militia are all very interesting but they have little to do with the English Bill of Rights. It is undue because it was tring to retell the fairy tale of the Malcolm "developing right" which is quirky and not mainstream. It is not accepted by mainstream English historians not has it been accepted by the U.S. Supreme Court. The English Bill of Rights, on which the American Bill of Rights and therefore the second amendment to the constitution was based, was not about militias. It was about the reinstatement of liberties taken away illegally by the previous king and about the formation of what became a parliamentary democracy in which the sovereign was not entitled to make law. It meant that the law regarding things such as arms was firmly in the hands of parliament which would sit regularly and be elected regularly. Amongst the text I deleted was a section which said "the English Bill of Rights of 1689 .. granted Protestants a series of liberties including the right to arms for self defense" As the article now makes clear (partly as a result of my intervention) the Bill of Rights did not grant a new right to have arms but reinstated an existing right to arms. Your text (which I agree was from an earlier version of this article) was pure baloney based on the Malcolm thesis and completely misleading. Our job in editing these articles is to inform the reader and not to mislead.

If you want to discuss the military aspects of the American second amendment that has more to do with American history than it does with English history. The text that said "The concept of a universal militia originated in England", is supported with American references but as far as I can see almost none of the sources are able to justify the claim. It seems a very unlikely to me. People the world over have come together to fight off neighboring warring tribes. History is full of it. Exactly what is meant by a "universal militia"? England was way to big to have one armed force and there is much evidence that bands of men were cobbled together from time to time for defensive purposes based upon regional alliances. I have little doubt that this pattern is the same the world over. What makes these historians think that England was so special? I do not see how this can be so and so far I see little evidence to support it.--Hauskalainen (talk) 14:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

OK. If you are going to make claims of "undue weight", we need to follow WP:UNDUE policy. Quoting: (we must) fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Your three paragraphs above are describing your personal point of view, stop that. It doesn't matter whether you disagree with Joyce Lee Malcolm, and the many others that say the same thing. Let's stick with what the sources are saying. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 15:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The scribblings of a small cabal of pro-2A writers do not outweigh the established view that the English Bill of Rights was a restoration of a pre-existing personal right. As I say, no mainstream English historian has come out and accepted Malcolm's revisionist view. Neither did the Supreme Court seem to accept that view that it was a new right created by the 1688 Act. Quite the revere in fact. That mainstream English historians have ignored this part of her book is not my fault. I tend to think that their silence is representative of either ignorance of her work or indifference. The wording of the 1688 Bill of Rights in relation to arms rights has little significance in modern day Britain. What is surprising (to me at least) is that it still animates the cousins. Would you like me to contact some of the eminent historians and lawyers at Oxford or Cambridge to comment on her interpretation of English law? I suspect that they would tear her to shreds!! If you want to preserve Joyce Lee Malcolm's reputation as a serious historian I would respectfully suggest that you drop this silly argument. --Hauskalainen (talk) 19:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You say: "...the established view." Can I WP:Verify this somewhere? Cite your sourcing for this "established view". Thanks. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 20:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Edits of user Miguel Escopeta

I am asking for discussion of the edits[26] to the article by User:Miguel Escopeta. None of these edits were preceded by discussion on the talk page. None of these edits include any use of sourcing. Several of these edits seemed simply to be insertions of this editors personal political opinion.

Can editors agree by consensus now that we should not be tolerating significant edits like this in the main article space that are not preceded by discussion on the talk page? Can we agree that edits need to be supported by sources? Can we agree that the neutrality balance seen in the article need to match the neutrality balance seen in the reliable sourcing?

A couple specifics, this edit[27] states that the opposing points of view are now just "historical". Really? Is there any sourcing that says that the point of view among legal theorists is now settled? When I look[28][29][30][31], I still see huge amounts of disagreement among legal theorists.

Also this edit[32] with the deceptive edit summary "remove original research" actually deleted sixteen excellent sources.

What is going on here? Are we going to edit this article based on WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR? Can we agree that we should discourage editors dropping in and making substantial changes to the article with deceptive edit summaries and zero discussion on the talk page? SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 14:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Speaking as a participant, the Supreme court, creates the reality with respect to the legal meaning of the amendment. With respect to the legal meanings of the 2A, an opinion that clearly conflicts with a Supreme court finding is now obsolete or, to put it more graciously, "historical"

Speaking as an attempted moderator / discussion organizer (if y'all will have me) on your other questions, I'll write something below. North8000 (talk) 19:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

What is a court "finding"? Do you mean their "holding"? SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 14:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

A general term for Obiter dictum and Ratio decidendi, both of which authoritatively define the legal landscape on the topic. North8000 (talk) 22:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

That is kind of vague. Can you say more precisely what this "finding" of the "legal landscape" is in this instance? Is this something that I can confirm somewhere? WP:V? Did this "finding" say that legal theorists now agree, as was asserted[[33]] by Miguel Escopeta in his edit? SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 19:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Trying to bring this section to the subject of the Escopeta edit, I have inserted[34] wording change attempting to remove WP:OR and to smooth out the bias problem. Comments please. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 15:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Miguel Escopeta added back the "historical" disclaimer. Is there any verification that these models of interpretation are just historical? SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 18:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the individual right interpretation is the sole interpretation for several cases now. Only the U.S. Supreme Court has legal jurisdiction to interpret the U.S. Constitution, as the final arbiter of its meaning. Our job, on Wikipedia is but to report the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation relative to text portraying to interpret the U.S. Constitution in articles on Wikipedia. Our job is not to advocate archaic and/or minority points of view that once existed in the absence of any relevant rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court on what a specific part of the U.S. Constitution might mean. The inclusion of such data borders on speculation, albeit with cited sources. It is thus of historical interest, only. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 19:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you verify please by citing reliable sources that the SCOTUS has ruled this is the "sole interpretation"? In other words, did the SCOTUS eliminate the protection of the states' right to form militia free from federal infringement? The reason that I ask is that when I check, the SCOTUS actually affirmed DC v. Parker case, and that case (which is binding precedent today) says pretty clearly that they were simply adding protection of the right of handguns within the home for self defense to the previously protected states' militia rights. Also, can we distinguish what we are talking about now. You seem to be blurring legal theorist's viewpoints with academic historian's viewpoints. I see that there is a difference between the perspective of binding precedence of law and the perspective of historical scholars. You know, lawyers versus historians. They don't always see eye to eye, and certainly the courts are not going to tell what the historians should think. Thanks. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 19:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The right to form a militia is not "directly" protected by the second. The right to "form" a militia is protected in the body of the Constitution. What is protected by the second is the right to form an "ARMED" militia. The states are constitutionally barred from arming the militia and MUST rely either on arms from the feds or from the willingness of individuals to arm themselves. Those are the only two ways a state can form an ARMED militia.71.184.184.238 (talk) 00:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Anon's edit of July 27

I have reverted the anon's edit of this day. It replaced the reliably sourced material in the Models of interpretation subsection of the Scholarly commentary section with material was mostly unsourced (the rest was based on synthesis of primary sources). I'm not saying whether the anon's material was correct, only that it was lacking reliable sourcing. Consensus is also recommended. SMP0328. (talk) 23:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The militia based models are hogging that section in violation of wiki "proportional weight" guidelines. Both those models are now dead as a doornail.

and why do you think direct quotes from Heller and Miller are "unsourced". Links to both cases were provided.71.184.184.238 (talk) 23:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Please avoid giving personal opinion on the article talk page, it is distracting. Please provide third party sourcing that "those models are dead as a doornail." SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 00:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

What part is personal opinion?71.184.184.238 (talk) 00:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Just rephrase what you say in the form: "I have read this, on page X, of the book ISBN 123456789." Or similar wording. Your use of direct quotes from primary court documents is not third party sourcing when the topic is the same as the subject of the court case. Also, when we determine weight per NPOV policy the weight is measured by it's prevalence as seen in the reliable sourcing, and it is not measured by the weight of opinion of the Wiki-editors. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 01:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I have read the quotes from Heller and Miller in Heller and Miller! Are you now satisfied?71.184.184.238 (talk) 01:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Stop disrupting this talk page. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 12:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yet again repeating what has been stated on this talk page numerous times. Primary documents are usable in a wiki article!71.184.184.238 (talk) 21:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Judicial interpretation

With Salty adding a section on Scholarly interpretation WITHOUT any notification, he should be that last person to bitch about my adding a section on Judicial interpretation.

Salty: where was your notification/proposal in the discussion page for that section? where was your consensus building? I personally think that section is just more of you pushing your discredited militia based garbage onto the article. I notice that the prevailing individual right model got a whole two lines in that section with the militia based garbage getting the vast majority of space, including the lead. Dead discredited models don't get the lead unless someone is POV pushing. 71.184.184.238 (talk) 00:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I believe you might have missed my discussion[35] of the need for restoration of coverage of the "standard model" theory. My insertion of that passage was just the restoration of a passage from a prior version of this article, and that passage had been stable here for a long time indicating that it held a consensus opinion among editors. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 01:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I must have missed the words "standard model" in you addition. Let me check. Nope! Didn't miss them as they aren't there.71.184.184.238 (talk) 01:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I can tell from your sarcastic tone that you don't actually care about an honest answer. Other editors here might care, so I will answer anyway. In that passage Professor Dorf is describing the modern debate regarding the 2A by historians and legal scholars in the last part of the 20th Century. This debate continues up to the present. This debate is variously described as the "Standard model" versus the "collective model", or "libertarianism" versus "republicanism", or "individual rights" versus the "militia based rights", etc.. This dualism was first described in essays by Robert E. Shallop 1982 and Lawrence Dilbert Cress 1984 in the Journal of American History. If this article is to give good coverage of the topic of scholarly thought about the Second Amendment we should be giving coverage to this material. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 14:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I like honest answers but experience has taught me not to hold my breath waiting for one from you. BTW: Care to explain why you wanted to include material on the "standard model" and instead included material dominated by the "collective rights" model. 71.184.184.238 (talk) 21:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:V of "This article is badly outdated due to recent Supreme Court Decisions"

A number of editors have expressed opinions along the lines of "This article is badly outdated due to recent Supreme Court Decisions." I have a specific request: What third party reliable sourcing are you reading that indicates that this article is "badly outdated"? (It would be helpful if editors avoid explaining with their original research or personal opinions, just point to sources please.) I am simply asking to be able to WP:Verify the assertion that content in this article is "badly outdated" by reading it in third party sourcing. Specifically identify the third party sourcing, page numbers and direct quotations would be helpful. Thanks. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 14:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Salty, I've said that several times. (again, here I'm speaking as a participant, not a moderator/organizer) The general theme for some of my reasons is that Heller and McDonald were / are basically hidden and undercovered in the article considering that they are the "gorilla in the living room" with respect to this subject, given that that the importance of these two is second only to the wording of the Amendment itself. Of these two, although McDonald is equally as important as Heller, it is far simpler and shorter to cover. If I had to get more specific about updating the article, it would be:

The key findings of these two decision were occluded / hidden in the article. Now, with them at least briefly mentioned in the lead, that issue is partly solved.

These two decisions (with McDonald only needing 1/10th as many words as Heller) need to be covered more thoroughly in the article. A really nice objective NPOV analysis with objective sources/sourcing would be nice. The current Heller section is too short and narrow considering it's impact, and much of its wording seems to have been designed to occlude the findings rather than cover them. To acknowledge the point that you have been making, this should includ coverage of what it did and didn't say about "gun control" laws. Roughly speaking, it said that outright bans are unconstitutional, that widely accepted restrictions (such as prohibiting possession by insane people)are probably OK, and that everything in between is still in limbo.

Certain findings of Heller have legally settled a couple of questions that were still open when much of this article was written. Most importantly that "militia" is irrelevant to availability of this right. Also that any outright bans that would preclude or severely hamper home defense are unconstitutional, and that any outright bans of handguns are unconstitutional. This means that coverage of "what is the meaning of "the militia" " is less relevant and should be reduced (and certainly not increased) It also means that that wording that treats clearly-resolved questions as still legally undecided is now wrong/ obsolete and should be updated.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Salty, I just noticed exactly what you wrote/implied. Which is that in order to assert, in a talk page that a Wikipedia article is out of date, one must cite a third party source that says that the Wikipeda article is out of date. Huh? North8000 (talk) 19:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, start here:

You write: "The current Heller section is too short and narrow considering it's impact," Please identify what verifiable source(s) you are reading that describes Heller's "impact".
You write: "Most importantly that "militia" is irrelevant to availability of this right. " Why use the singular "right"? Identify verifiable sourcing that says what you are claiming here, that the states' militia right has been extinguished.

I appreciate your point though, there has been new events in the last two years. I disagree with your view that these new events diminish our responsibility to neutrally fairly cover the rich historical meaning of the Second Amendment. The evolution of the view points about "bearing arms" is a rich and fascinating thing. If editors can be a little less hostile and just chill a bit, let us just give neutral coverage to history as it unfolded.

There should not be a need for us to revise history to justify the Heller holding of a right of self defensive handguns in the home, which really began circa 1989 with the coining of the highly successful "Standard model" movement. That is a popular modern interpretation in a nation concerned about self defense against crime, a simple fact, no threats or judgment. Looking back in time, circa 1939 in Miller the nation was fixated on gangster crime and high powered machine guns, hence the use in a militia viewpoint was top dog. Prior to that in Presser the nation was concerned about unions and strike breaking with private Pinkerton militias. Prior to that with Cruikshank it was arming of the freeman versus the White militias. Prior to that it was the issue in the states about carry of concealed weapons, individual gun rights. Prior to that it was the civil use of states militia both in the antebellum period and the anti-federalists concerns about governmental control of the army. Prior that it was the whole Machiavellian concept of liberty against tyranny. Prior to that it was the duty of the Yeoman to serve is militias. That is a pretty rich and compelling history, and the modern individual right is not threatened by it. Certainly we don't need to paper over that history to somehow justify the present. Heller is binding law, and your guns are not threatened by what this article says.

One thing you probably aren't aware of is that in 2008, just after Heller, this article was given a MAJOR rewrite, so you assertion that: "Certain findings of Heller have legally settled a couple of questions that were still open when much of this article was written." is baseless. The majority of the text in the article was written after Heller. Take a look at a version from just prior to Heller[36], by my rough guess 2/3rds of the article is newly written after Heller". And the portions that remain are basically historical issues that Heller had no bearing on, (unless we want to revise history to justify things.) If you want to do that, show us your reliable sourcing. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 22:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Salty, respectfully, I believe that you are using "show sources before saying anything" to obstruct discussion and development of the article rather than as intended which is as a criteria for article content. What I said was a generalization in an attempt to answer your questions.

Regarding coverage of history, you set up and argued against a straw dog of what I "said" vs. what I actually said. I didn't say that pre-2A history should not be covered. I basically said that certain aspects that related to previously undecided issues should get reduced coverage. Ditto for other comments such as "paper over history", and "revise history to justify things" But, either way, I'm with you on your thought to retain and have historical coverage.

Answering your question, my choice of "right" vs. "rights" was arbitrary, without intended meaning.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I assume you don't answer my request for sources because you don't have sources. The reasons I asked for your two sources is this: Your assumption that Heller has a giant impact doesn't match what I have read about the actual impact of Heller. Your reasoning about needing to down play the "militia" aspects of the 2A don't seem to be founding in anything you have read.

And, my request for sources is intended to obstruct the development of the article in the direction of people wanting to mold it according towards their personal whim. This is aimed at myself as well as others. If we all can focus on reading the sources and then writing an article to match, (per policy), this encyclopedia will be better. The more we focus on discussion of sources on this talk page, the more productive the talk page can be.

I apologize about mis-quoting you. I guess I misunderstood you when you said you thought "This means that coverage of "what is the meaning of "the militia" " is less relevant and should be reduced". Tell us please what sources you are reading for "This". That way we both can be discussing the same thing, thanks.

By the way, have you read this article about estimates of the actual impact of the McDonald ruling. McDonald extends that right to the remaining eight outliers. None of those eight states, however, ever tried to completely ban gun ownership and qualified individuals can lawfully obtain guns in every one. That source seems somewhat at odds with your assertion: "...that any outright bans that would preclude or severely hamper home defense are unconstitutional, and that any outright bans of handguns are unconstitutional." If reliable sources say that such laws on the books today are rare or non-existent, is this McDonald court case really a great impact or is it symbolic? It would be helpful if when discussing the improvement of this article with you that you could be sharing the sources for your opinions, that way we could be focusing on the same thing. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 13:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

We're going in circles here because you continue to argue against things that I never said and am not asserting. Maybe it is just a misunderstanding. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I am saying that the impact of Heller WITH RESPECT TO ARTICLE CONTENT is that it decided several previously undecided questions.....basically the things in the lead. North8000 (talk) 15:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

This sentence in the lead: "This Court ruled that this right is not based on membership in a militia and is an individual right." The court actually said "unconnected", a word which which leaves as protected both forms of the right. Our intro sentence wording essentially declares falsely that the states' militia right is no longer protected. The question I am asking is this: Did the court rule that the right of self protection within the home was in addition to, or instead of the previous states' militia right? (That is why I keep asking for your sourcing. We should WP:V this.) The SCOTUS Heller decision affirmed the DC v. Parker case which quite clearly indicates that the self protection within the home right is in addition to the states' militia rights. Parker is presently binding law. I think you are going to far to imply that the states militia rights are now extinguished. This is a pretty important point to leave unsourced. Also, I am now uncomfortable being in the position of arguing what the meaning of Heller is by reading dicta directly the primary court document. Can you and I finally agree to look to reliable secondary sourcing about this? Tell us, what sourcing did you read when you wrote the sentence: "This Court ruled that this right is not based on membership in a militia and is an individual right." SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 15:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Salty, myself (and I think everybody else) agrees with the first half of your paragraph. I didn't know that you saw that as a point of contention. And yes, I would love to find and use an expert, objective analysis of Heller (or several). But, for a careful reader, most of the main points in what SCOTUS wrote are either very simple/clear, or very clearly ambiguous, i.e. suitable for primary source use. Finally, I did not write that sentence that you are asking about. I originally wrote something like "membership or non-membership in a militia has no impact on whatever rights are available to an individual under the 2nd amendment". Awkward sounding wording, but unambiguous about what it is and isn't saying. Then somebody changed it in the working draft to the sentence you quoted / are asking about, and nobody objected. In fact I deliberately completely avoided using the term "individual right " in my draft of the lead because that word is unclear without further explanation of what it's meaning is in the context of the Supreme Court's use of the term in Heller, and thought that such an explanation was too much detail for the lead. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I have changed that sentence to read "This Court ruled that the amendment protects an individual right unconnected with membership in a militia." SMP0328. (talk) 17:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

SMP0238, could you hold off on making that edit until after we reach a consensus please? I think the part about adding the word "unconnected" is good. Unfortunately, we seem stuck on relying on editors interpretations of the primary document now, which seems risky. First, considering the high profile of the introduction we need to be very careful with the wording. Using the word "ruled" to describe what is coming from non-binding opinion, dicta, seem plainly wrong. Obiter dictum is legally considered non-binding, and is not a ruling. Also, there is the NPOV problem that when we are talking about dicta we need to decide which dicta is important and which is not. The sourcing says that in nearly 200 federal court cases in the last two years, that the dicta that is most often viewed as important is the wording "longstanding prohibitions", such as prohibitions on felons and the mentally ill. So, SMP0328 suggestion of a bald wording "individual" without a qualifier "lawful" seems to be at odds with the sourcing and a NPOV violation. I favor the earlier suggestion of finding compromise by keeping the introduction on the vague side, and leave out the word "individual", or alternatively include the word "lawful". SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 18:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

We have reached consensus. You want that sentence to say "unconnected to" so to avoid the implication that SCOTUS rejected the possibility of there being a state right separate from the individual right. North8000 didn't disagree with you and nobody else has commented on this thread. I change that sentence to reflect the consensus, making that sentence's wording reflect your desire, and you reverted me. If you're going to revert me even when I agree with you, how are we to work together? SMP0328. (talk) 18:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

You acted so quick. No we have not reached consensus, see my comments above. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 18:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, just so we keep this sorted out and clearly consensused, , the sentence that we're talking about as of when we put up the new lead said: "This Court ruled that this right is not based on membership in a militia and is an individual right." Who is proposing what changes? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

This edit[37] by SMP0328 is edit war. I suggest that we not edit war, or we may see that this article gets locked for three months. Instead, let us voluntarily agree to work things out on the talk page first before inserting text in article space. Also, with the NPOV problem recently inserted, I am requesting the addition of a POV warning tag. NPOV violations in the high profile introduction are of serious concern. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 18:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not edit warring; I made a consensus-based edit. This discussion can continue regarding other changes, but what I did was based on a consensus.

Separately, stop talking about adding a POV tag -- that's not constructive. SMP0328. (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Salty, the sentence in the lead we put up said:

"This Court ruled that this right is not based on membership in a militia and is an individual right"

and now it has been changed to:

"This Court ruled that the amendment protects an individual right unconnected with membership in a militia."

I think that SMP thought that everybody was cool with this change and that you (Salty) in particular wanted this change. Is this change OK with you? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I am outraged that SMP0328 both edit wars and claims consensus, when plainly there is not consensus.

"The Supreme Court has held that the amendment protects a right of lawful self protection within the home unconnected with membership in a militia." seems to be WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, striking a balance of calling attention the recent court ruling and not over reaching as to what the holding in that ruling actually said while at the same time not relying on editor interpretation of dicta. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 21:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Salty, this is not looking too cool. I just said my understanding that SMP made an edit that he thought that YOU wanted, I listed the edit that you are complaining about, asked what you thought of it, and you are just vaguely accusing him of edit warring while avoiding making any specific comment on the change that he made. It doesn't add up.

Regarding your new proposal, to me it seems an inaccurate blending of two statements which need to be separate because they are separate. One is the finding that militia is not a condition on any 2A right, the other (which I think is too complex to tackle in the lead)is (briefly and inaccurately speaking) defense within the home with a readily usable handgun. North8000 (talk) 22:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Would you suggest a compromise wording then? Your summary: "the finding that militia is not a condition on any 2A right" seems WP:OR. The concept of something called "the finding" seems your personal idea. The holding concerns self defense within the home. That is the core WP:V issue to focus upon. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 18:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This is obviously a highly condensed/summarized statement. In discussions at WP:VER and WP:NOR I've made the assertion that these policies are written such that if taken rigorously, all summarization is OR and thus technically forbidden. You seem to be supporting my assertion. :-) But I think that it is very cautious and accurate summarizaiton.North8000 (talk) 22:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Does that mean you are OK with the sentence wording: "The Supreme Court has held that the amendment protects a right of lawful self protection within the home unconnected with membership in a militia." in the intro? If not, please suggest an alternate wording. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 15:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I object to North8000's revert[38] with a misleading edit summary. (Reverted most of Salty's change. 1. Juxtaposition of those two creates an error. 2. lets discuss big changes in the lead first.). 1. The actual error is to call the holding of Heller to be "an individual right" which is FAR too ambiguous, when the specific holding is precisely "self defense within the home" which is only a small subset of a greater catagory called "individual rights". 2. This has been discussed, see posting 15:49 27 July just above. This push of "individual rights" into the introduction warrants a POV warning tag. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 22:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Salty, when you discussed the particular change (juxtaposing those two findings) there was no support for it and I know that I objected to it. Juxtaposing those two independent findings is very heavy duty OR. Also with a consensused lead, major changes should be consensused first. My original draft did not have the word "individual right" in there, mostly because, I think that explanation of the court's meaning of "individual right" as used in their finding should be included, otherwise it is ambiguous. To do so precisely might be too long for the lead. The current lead sort of implicitly clarifies it, i.e. not affected by militia. North8000 (talk) 23:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

What does "juxtaposing those two findings" mean? I don't follow your reasoning. It is not even close to OR to take literally what Heller did, which is establish a right for self protection in the home, and put it in the introduction. The actual "OR" is to extrapolate that self defense holding, to a more general statement of "an individual right" which is so ambiguous it could encompass any number of things. And, again, your coining of a word "finding" to apply in this situation is novel and inappropriate. There is the holding, which is binding, and there is the dicta which is non-binding. The words "individual right" is merely dicta. If we are to select out some dicta and not other dicta, (like is done there now with the words "individual rights", that is OR and POV push. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 02:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Salty, first most of the influential findings of Supreme court case are what you call dicta and trying to discount. The "holdings" are usually about an individual court case. By the reasoning that you are promoting, Roe vs. Wade didn't legalize abortion, it just ruled on a Texas law.

I agree that "individual right" is somewhat ambiguous in the lead, but your "cure" made it worse. By juxtaposition, you are taking two individual findings and saying that one defines / limits the other. There is one finding that being in a militia is not a condition for ANY 2A right. And another finding was that a law that outlaws self defense in the home with an accesible handgun is unconstitutional. Your statement that justaposes these two, and says the Sepreme court said that it's "militia not a condition" finding only applies to defense in the home is not correct, logically flawed and OR. That's like if the Supreme Court says that a state can't ban Toyotas and it also said that a state can't ban green cars. What you tried to put in would be equivalent to saying that the court said only that no state can outlaw green Toyotas. That would be an absolutely incorrect description of those two things that the court said, and also OR. North8000 (talk) 02:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Article lacks section on Ratification of the Constitution

and widespread demands for language protecting the right to arms and/or limiting federal power over the militia

As a starting point to that section I propose the following language from UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. TIMOTHY JOE EMERSON http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/emerson.html

The Ratification Debates

A foundation of American political thought during the Revolutionary period was the well justified concern about political corruption and governmental tyranny. Even the federalists, fending off their opponents who accused them of creating an oppressive regime, were careful to acknowledge the risks of tyranny. Against that backdrop, the framers saw the personal right to bear arms as a potential check against tyranny. Theodore Sedgwick of Massachusetts expressed this sentiment by declaring that it is "a chimerical idea to suppose that a country like this could ever be enslaved . . . Is it possible . . . that an army could be raised for the purpose of enslaving themselves or their brethren? or, if raised whether they could subdue a nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty and who have arms in their hands?" Noah Webster similarly argued:

Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.

George Mason argued the importance of the militia and right to bear arms by reminding his compatriots of England's efforts "to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them . . . by totally disusing and neglecting the militia." He also clarified that under prevailing practice the militia included all people, rich and poor. "Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." Because all were members of the militia, all enjoyed the right to individually bear arms to serve therein.

The framers thought the personal right to bear arms to be a paramount right by which other rights could be protected. Therefore, writing after the ratification of the Constitution, but before the election of the first Congress, James Monroe included "the right to keep and bear arms" in a list of basic "human rights" which he proposed to be added to the Constitution.

Patrick Henry, also in the Virginia convention, eloquently argued for the dual rights to arms and resistance to oppression: "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined." Thus, the federalists agreed that an armed populace was the ultimate check on tyranny.

While both Monroe and Adams supported ratification of the Constitution, its most influential framer was James Madison. In The Federalist No. 46, he confidently contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European despotisms which he contemptuously described as "afraid to trust the people with arms." He assured his fellow citizens that they need never fear their government because of "the advantage of being armed...."

By January of 1788, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia and Connecticut ratified the Constitution without insisting upon amendments. Several specific amendments were proposed, but were not adopted at the time the Constitution was ratified. The Pennsylvania convention, for example, debated fifteen amendments, one of which concerned the right of the people to be armed, another with the militia. The Massachusetts convention also ratified the Constitution with an attached list of proposed amendments. In the end, the ratification convention was so evenly divided between those for and against the Constitution that the federalists agreed to amendments to assure ratification. Samuel Adams proposed that the Constitution

Be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless when necessary for the defence of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of their grievances: or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures.71.184.184.238 (talk) 23:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

This 'well regulated' edit needs explanation

This edit[39] by Yaf, made with the edit summary "Meaning of "well regulated militia": removing original research statement from citation that had the impact of turning the meaning by exactly 180 degrees (intentional?))" needs some explanation. Yaf, please explain what you mean. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 13:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Revisiting the Oxford dictionary meaning of to bear arms

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

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

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

For Salty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding your point about the words "such as". First you are quoting from dicta in Heller which is non-binding. Second, you are making prohibited interpretation of a primary document. Third, when you check sourcing, such as [40] and [41] you see that after two years and over 200 court cases this hypothetical "such as" you point to has not manifest itself in the courts. Presently, Heller's only tangible change is for the handgun owners in the District of Columbia for the purposes of immediate self defense within the home. Any other "such as" change needs to be sourced, per WP:NOTCRYSTAL. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 01:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

From Reuters article - mentions both Landmark ruling (IE significant - discussed elsewhere on this page) and Individual Right. [42] AliveFreeHappy (talk) 22:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

@AFH Your Reuters article is dated June 26, 2008. The Heller decision was issued that same day, June 26, 2008. That article is pure speculation of the future, I even wonder if the reporter had time to read the court opinion. Certainly they did not know how the courts would interpret Heller. Why not read the many excellent articles that have been published in 2009 and 2010 which have had the benefit of time to give a viewpoint? (That's a question, answer please.) This article[43] written in 2009 by Sanford Levinson is very well considered and carries a lot of weight, and was written without the pure speculation of your Reuter's article. Professor Levinson says that: "Heller will not produce significant change to the American legal landscape". Which is it, Reuters or Levinson? (That's a question, answer please.) It seems this is a clear case of editor selection bias, confirmation bias, where you seek out just the articles about the topic that favor your personal point of view (and avoid reading articles that disagree with your worldview. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 14:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed new section: "US Supreme Court Determinations"

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

Heller Decision

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

Held:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

McDonald Decision

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

Break Added Later for Clarity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't appreciate your accusation of "continuous smokescreen", see WP:CIVIL. I am just wanting to stick with WP:V as to the actual impact of Heller and McDonald. I have shown you reliable sourcing from 2010 that the actual impact is quite limited. Do you have recent sourcing that the actual impact is significant? Your 2008 sourcing was speculative and not born out by 200+ court cases now settled. Also, if you are going to hang your hat on the premise that after 200+ court cases that this is an "open question", please read WP:NOTCRYSTAL, and come back later when you are satisfied that it is a settled question. In mean time please quit you attempts to inject your POV here. Your imagination of "The open question is what will happen to the laws that harass everyday gun ownership without outright prohibiting it", actually is no longer an open question as of March 26, 2010. It is now settled law too, see here[44], and pay special attention to what that judge has to say about "presumptively lawful regulatory measures". You and I may not agree on personal opinion, so instead lets read the sourcing, and match what we read fairly and without bias. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 17:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Regarding McDonald, you say we don't know. OK. Then stop speculating, per WP:NOTCRYSTAL. I think actually, that we do know a lot about McDonald, based on this[45] expert analysis. 1) It only affects 8 States. 2) McDonald subsumes the precedent established by Heller as to the scope of the protection and standard of review. 3) One study of the laws in these 8 states (actually all 50) indicate that there are no laws that are 'handgun bans' which McDonald would over turn. According to this expert source, McDonald will have minimal effect. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 19:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

An interesting read re the impact of Heller can be found at Second Amendment Redux and Second Amendment Revolution article in Harvard Law Record and the ACLU rethinking it's 2A stance (that's gotta be significant) and protecting an individual right [46]. I could go on and on and on. Despite anyone's claim that there are no reliable sources, sources abound in support of the inidividual rights interpretation of the Heller decision, as well as the significance. I'm not say the source SB points to should be excluded, but it does seem to be a minority POV (that Heller was not significant). AliveFreeHappy (talk) 22:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Stop it with the "consensused", it was not. And blaming me for the instability is astonishing revisionism. The intro was stable for months, and I had nothing to do with starting[47] the present instability, done by edit war was hardly a good example of building a consensus, (where is your criticism of that?). I would support using the Robert A. Levy's summary sentence, in green above. I do object to the current sentence in the intro because it implies too much based on what we see in the sourcing today. Switching the Robert Levy wording now. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 17:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

False. The closest thing to a consensus introduction was this version[48] which was stable for months. The version now transparently seeks to leave an illusion that a nebulous 'individual right' is protected, when the stark reality is that the 'individual' aspect of the right has been very narrowly defined to be within the home. We got around this problem before by keeping the wording ambiguous. Now, there is a POV push. This is a major problem because it is high profile in the introduction and this problem warrants a POV warning tag. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 14:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Revisit the Lead?

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

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

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

It shows bad faith, I think, to keep calling the instability of the introduction these last few weeks "consensused". Plainly false. I suggest we go back to the actual consensus lead, with the ambiguous wording, the stable version that existed with minor changes in the wording for more than a year[49][50][51][52]. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 19:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Workspace for discussed new section on Supreme Court Determinations

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

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

Workspace for discussed new section on Supreme Court Determinations

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

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

Another FP request by SaltyBoatr

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

Forward Progress?

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

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

The Lead

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

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

Here are a couple ideas:

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

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

The English History section dispute[53][54] is still active. The version of text which got locked in with the article full-protection, (which remains in the article now) remains problematic and is aligned with Hauskalainen's preferred text which has all the appearances of being his personal research and is not reflective of the point of view seen in the majority of the sourcing. This dispute has been on hold for almost three weeks now waiting for him to 'summarize' his argument. I suggest that we have waited long enough. We should go back to some non-controversial "last stable" version of this section now. Then, we should go forward with any needed corrections. The baseline text should not be the version now in the article which exists there only because it was the "locked in" version at the moment of the administrative page lock. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 15:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I am not asking for "my preference" but instead the editor consensus stable version that existed prior to the recent edit war. This English History section sat in a relatively stable state for ten months, from August 2009[55] through April 2010[56]. This stable state version would be the best starting point because it represents a version of the text that stood the test of time here, implicitly reflecting an editor consensus. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 21:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And answering your question about the "skeleton". The seminal book on this topic is by Joyce Lee Malcom, titled "To keep and bear arms: the origins of an Anglo-American right". This book is widely accepted[57] as the definitive reference work on the origins of the Second Amendment being founded in English history. Contrary to what Hausk says, essentially zero criticism of this book has been published. I have checked extensively, and only found two criticism's published, and these both complain that the book is too slanted to the "individual rights" viewpoint. Frankly it is astonishing that Hausk is criticizing this book as not being "individual rights" enough! Keep personal opinion off this talk page, it wastes our time. Let's stick to sources. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 21:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I could again go through Hausk's repetition of his argument and, once again, re-refute using secondary sourcing. (In the interest of saving space, I won't repeat it, you can read it above in the archives.) Repeating the key point: The Malcolm book has been very widely accepted[58]. The outlying position here is that held by Haskalainen. Notice that, once again, his argument hinges solely on his interpretation of these 250 year old documents and that he does not cite any third party sourcing in support of his viewpoint. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 13:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Being precise here might be helpful. I am not going to speak to my opinion on the reliability of Malcolm on this talk page. Actually, I have said that when I checked reliable sourcing[59], I see that her viewpoint is very broadly accepted. And, Hauskalainen says that Malcolm is not widely accepted. (Hauskalainen has not identified any third party evidence of his assertion, it appears to be fanciful.) SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 15:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notice that when asked "which historian" he was talking about, (and Hausk has said that multiple historians agree with his position), Hauskalainen could not mention even one of these historians by name. Sorry, this boils down to a failure to WP:Verify. Until such a date that Hausk can cite specific sources, the English history section (currently in the article) fails to meet policy. Also notice that Hauskalainen makes what amounts to a statement here[60] that he is an amateur historian. What we have here is an amateur historian trying to publish his personal historical research into this article. That is a WP:NOR violation. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 22:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Changes to Lead?

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

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

Sorry, I have been diligently discussing on the talk page, see above. Also, I strongly disputed your assessment that the intro is "consensus". It was not. Also, it is interesting that you single me out for making article changes, and falsely accuse me of not using the talk page. But you tolerate major changes made by other editors[61][62][63] who actually don't use the talk page while making major controversial changes to the article (often with misleading edit summaries). Why single on just me? (I am tempted to guess it has to do with POV sympathy.) Explain the odd appearance please. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 19:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Outrageous! Are you willfully avoiding acknowledging the sources[64][65][66] I have pointed to? There is solid excellent third party sourcing that flatly says that the operative dicta from Heller, after nearly 200 post-Heller federal court rulings, are the words Again, again, and again the lower federal courts have ruled: "presumptively lawful regulatory measures" (Heller, pg. 55) were deemed "regulations ... as permissible" (Heller, pg 63).SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 20:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

@SMP0328 It is interesting you would mention Lopez, (and tacitly support the misinterpretation of its importance by ignoring Raich.). Interesting I stay because Sanford Levinson (who is so important to this article) recently wrote a thoughtful article that compares Heller to Lopez. Both cases were initially trumpeted as having great significance and were considered to be legal watersheds. And, after the the dust settled, in practical terms both have "...turned out to be relatively unimportant". Read his paper[67], it is interesting. This undue emphasis on Heller is making article look silly. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 13:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

@North8000 Answering your question: Did you read this article from SCOTUSblog[68] which I ref'ed to you before? The answer is there. In short, 42 states have state Constitutions that do already explicitly protect an individual right to firearms. So, only the other 8 states will be affected. Also, McDonald just incorporated the protection outlined in Heller. With Heller we already have an excellent data set, 200 cases already, of how the courts will be interpreting gun laws. The pattern is crystal clear, essentially every gun law presently on the books has been found to be permissible under Heller, (indicating that McDonald will be the same). Professor Winkler has studied the gun laws in all of the 8 States where McDonald has an effect an has found no laws that amount to unconstitutional 'handgun bans', and therefore he has predicted that McDonald will have zero effect. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 13:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Analysis of Supreme Court Rulings

District of Columbia v. Heller

Immediate reaction after the Heller ruling was varied, with many sources giving focus to the portions of the ruling that pertained to the fact that the ruling was the first in the history of the Supreme Court to read any individual right meaning as being protected by the Second Amendment. The majority opinion drafted by Justice Antonin Scalia, gives explanation of the majority legal reasoning behind this decision.^[2] The majority opinion made clear that the recent ruling did not foreclose the Court’s prior interpretations given in United States v. Cruikshank, Presser v. Illinois, and United States v. Miller though these earlier rulings were not to limit the right to keep and bear arms solely for militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.^[2]

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

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

Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. ^[2]

References

^ Justices Extend Firearm Rights in 5-to-4 Ruling
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Cite error: The named reference CornellHellerSummary was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

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

Discussions

Made some suggested edits, more to follow. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 16:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whoa, this material is still very much troublesome, and moving it into the article space[69] is premature. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 18:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

POV marking

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

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

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

There is nothing wrong with including the rulings. Placing them in the lead, however, biases the article toward recent events and is too detailed. Providing a bunch of legal interpretations in literally the third sentence is a turn-off to the reader. Our intro needs to draw readers in to the article. The goal of the lead is not to provide details on policy. As a compromise, let's split the lead into two paragraphs. We'll cover the basics in the first paragraph, and provide a nod to recent events in the second. If someone wants to try this out feel free. Otherwise I'll make an edit after dinner. Moving back and forth like this is just going to lead to full protection. Let's try a different approach. N419 BH 23:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

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

The 200

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

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

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

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

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

"Demonstrably?" Really, where did you read that? Or, is it your opinion, unencumbered by reading any sources. When I read sources[70] I see that the 200+ cases are extremely relevant because they are establishing the all vital Standard of review which was missing from Heller. Editor's here are bent on fighting ideological fights, when what we are failing to do is to give coverage to genuine issues relevant to the 2A. The Standard of review to be used by the courts in this post-Heller era could hardly be more significant, yet we are distracted with WP:BATTLE. This petty ideological infighting should stop, it gets in the way of actually writing an article based on WP:V. Let's add a section in the article discussing the 'standard of review'[71] used in the courts regarding 2A law. Agreed? SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 20:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

We need a sourced statement to continued controversy and questions. Salty overdid it with the 200, but I would like my previous sentence with two sources (an AP news article and a paper by a law professor) to be reconsidered. N419 BH 21:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

And the single sentence from the MSNBC article:

“

By a 5-4 vote, the justices cast doubt on handgun bans in the Chicago area, but signaled that some limitations on the Constitution's "right to keep and bear arms" could survive legal challenges.

”

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

In my mind, that quote is exactly what is needed to speak to the continued debate regarding the amendment. We don't want to express a particular POV, we simply need to state the amendment is controversial. Quoting a 5-4 decision speaks to the controversy, the "casting doubt on handgun bans" speaks to a 30 year old law which has for all practical intents and purposes been ruled unconstitutional (an additional statement to the controversy), and the remaining statement sources the current article's unsourced sentence regarding the constitutionality of some limitations on the right to keep and bear arms. N419 BH 22:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Ratification debates

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

SMP0328 - Heller syllabi

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

Lead

Please observe WP:LEAD when setting up the lead paragraph. Extensive discussions of Supreme Court cases do not belong here. Instead, mentioning the amendment is controversial draws readers into the article and encourages them to read more by asking "why is this controversial". Discussing the cases in the lead causes a perception of POV toward recent events. I strongly encourage people to instead expand the sections on Supreme Court cases already in the article. N419 BH 23:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

“

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies.

”

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

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

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

How about briefly summarize it by cutting the legal jargon. "Recent Supreme Court decisions have found several state laws limiting gun ownership to be unconstitutional per the Second Amendment." This summarizes, and leaves the detailed discussion to the article itself. As is, the two cases are covered more in the introduction than in the body. This is not good from a readability standpoint. N419 BH 00:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I've reformatted the lead by splitting it into three paragraphs. I think this reads better. I've reworded some sections for clarity but I do not believe I have deleted any information. N419 BH 01:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

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

The big trouble with putting the "on the basis of both text and history" quote into the introduction is that it violates WP:SYN to advance just one of the POV's seen. That quote comes from the non-binding dicta of the ruling. It carries no special weight, other than if the federal courts give it weight, and this hasn't happened. Why should editor here chose some dicta and not other dicta? The answer is that editors here are seeking to push a political agenda. What we should be doing instead is reading the secondary sourcing, such as this UCLA Law Review article[72] that has analyzed which dicta in that ruling have actually been deemed to be important by the courts. Let's stick with what we read in the sourcing and not use the article to make WP:BATTLE. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 15:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

ABA was rejected last night as being "out of date". Perhaps we can find a newer source? One that was created after the Supreme Court rulings? N419 BH 13:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

WP:BOLD instead of POV tagging the article, why don't you find a better source. I agree the current three need replacement, and I've already suggested that to the editor who added them. I've been searching MSNBC but haven't met with much success. N419 BH 15:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

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

The lead was stable for the past 12 hours. I'm saying be bold and fix the source. I'm trying to right now, I just can't find an article from a major news organization that confirms what the sentence says. N419 BH 15:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

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

No I understand it. I'm saying instead of going "that's POV, (click delete button)" source the current POV statement and create and source the opposite viewpoint. For example, "Recent Supreme Court decisions have clarified what the Second Amendment freedoms are, though unanswered questions remain and controversy continues." Actually, I'll add that and see what happens once I have a source for it. N419 BH 15:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

I've removed the two blog sources and one possibly unreliable source. I've reworded the opening sentence into a more neutral POV sentence. I've added a quote from an AP and Reuters written article (sourced to MSNBC) that speaks to continued questions regarding the amendment. I believe this is more neutral. N419 BH 17:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

That should be reverted. We need a statement regarding continued questions and controversy, and it needs to be sourced. Otherwise the lead seems to indicate all questions are answered, which by no means are they. N419 BH 17:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

And it's gone again. I will say again, we cannot discuss the supreme court cases without also giving a nod to continued questions. N419 BH 20:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Reversion of New Supreme Court Determinations Section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Would you please stop the personal attacks? SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 16:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Please, discuss the article, not the editor. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 16:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Two of the URL's you claim that support your "important determinations" claim are dead links[73][74]. Looking at the others I don't see it supported that they say this is an "important determination". Could you point exactly to where you have WP:V your "important determination" claim? Thanks. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 16:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

So, do you concede that you haven't sourced "important determination"? Unless we can show that Heller is "important" it isn't justified to insert 10% of the article space to coverage. Give this a 'sniff test'. In the last two years have we seen many gun laws overturned? No, 200+ challenges, and at best 2 laws are overturned. A tiny amount of effect. Your undue emphasis on the "individual rights" snippets from 2008 speculation about Heller is an undue POV push in this article. Please WP:V your "importance" weight to justify 10% of the article being devoted to this topic. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 20:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

"The declaration of a new individual right under the federal Constitution is a rare event"^[1] may additionally speak to the importance of Heller in addition to the sources given below as well as those given previously when you've asked the same question.

This is more like the rediscovery of a right that some people forgot about. That does not include the normal people of this country, the vast majority of whom knew that the right existed.71.184.184.238 (talk) 23:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Potentially interesting source - "the most dramatic and important Supreme Court case of the 21st century so far..."^[2] and other such. If you want an RS that talks about the case as being important. The opposing view to Winkler who says that it is not important. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

And another source - right down the middle. Maybe the best. "The decision is unquestionably a constitutional landmark. But it's practical consequences should not be overstated. It is neither a Magna Carta for pro-gun enthusiasts nor a return to the Wild West feared by gun control proponents." ^[3] AliveFreeHappy (talk) 19:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Which page in the 2008 Doherty book are your reading? Both your sources are from 2008. The problem here is that, yes, in 2008 many people were speculating as to the importance of Heller. Now, in 2010, that importance doesn't show to have been born out in ANY sourcing that I have seen. Why the focus upon things written in the immediate aftermath of the decision? Why the downplay of the sourcing we read from 2009 and 2010? Especially, when what we are reading is not longer speculative, but involves quantitative analysis of the lower 2A court rulings. Devoting 10% of the text of the article to out-of-date speculation about what Heller might someday mean, especially when that speculation has not been born out seem a POV-push. This is against policy. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 20:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Upon further reading, I find your "POV-push" statement uncivil. This is not a POV push. This is the result of research finding numerous sources that say Heller IS important. Many more sources than those that say it's not important. It's not against policy, but rather exactly in line with policy. Even if you don't like it. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 20:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Re the 2008 Doherty book I have it in kindle, so I don't have a page #. I can provide approx location if you have a kindle. Re the importance, none of the reasons in my sources are negated with time. The reasoning they use is more broad than that and still applies. There is essentially 1 source that says it's not important and many sources that says it IS important. 100's if you extend it to newspaper articles. The sheer mass of it shows that the mainstream POV is that it's an important case, while one opinion piece by Winkler says otherwise. I think the Pollock book is probably most representative of all points of view in a really brief paragraph - it covers all POV quickly and succinctly. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 20:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Again. I don't deny in 2008, the conventional wisdom was that Heller would be important. That wasn't born out by reality, and in 2009 and 2010, I don't see it confirmed. Rather what we see now are many reports that Heller was a fizzle. Again, and again, and again 200+ times now, Heller had no effect other than to confirm existing gun law. Show some recent sourcing that says Heller is important. The Pollock book says "...(Heller's) practical consequences should not be overstated.", which confirms my point. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 20:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's not confuse "practical consequences" with "importance". AliveFreeHappy (talk) 20:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

What is the difference? SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 20:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It's "important" for example in that the court rarely expands an individual right. It's important in that the court has firmly established the individual right view, where before it was up in the air. It may not result in laws being overturned as a practical consequence - it remains still to early to be seen since such events take years. Plus we'll want to see the scholarly work arouond it, like how many communities voluntarily gave up their restrictions,etc. So far the consequence of Heller is that it resulted in the 2A being incorporated against the states - definitely an important event. I can't imagine you have a RS that says the incorporating something isn't a big deal, but if you do, please share. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 20:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't need more recent sources, these sources clearly establish the POV and have established it quite firmly. If you don't agree, call a straw poll etc and let's see what people think. The sources explain why they think Heller is important, and their reasons have not been affected by any particular history in the last 2 years, winklers opinion notwithstanding. We have acknowledge that some think that Heller is not important. What the sourcing shows is that many more people think that it IS important. And as I said above, I think Pollock makes the whole issue the most clear - he shows both the main POV's. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 20:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It is sad that your mind is made up and you don't need more recent sources. See WP:V, we are supposed to be reading sources. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 20:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

(added later) Even just the holding putting the "militia condition" debate (which probably has millions of pages written on it) to rest was huge; I can't believe that you would claim otherwise, much less (apparently) claim that it is so insignificant that it should not be covered in the article.North8000 (talk) 20:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Another clear example of WP:WL. First you say it needs sources, then when sourced you argue against the sources based on anything you can find. I don't need more sources to prove this point because I have already provided sources. I do not need to provide them ad naseaum just to satisfy one editor who prefers that the article have a particular slant. I'm sorry that you don't agree, but that really doesn't matter. The sources I've given more than meet any and all wiki standard and policies and are fair game for use. It's not about having my mind made up, it's about already having enough sources to establish the point. I've provided them in the recent past, and I've provided them now. They range from news sources to opinion pieces to scholarly works. All you have is a single person saying that Heller is unimportant. The RS burden is on you to prove your case, since I and others here have already established the "importance" POV. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 20:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

AliveFreeAndHappy has met a higher standard, so high that it doesn't exist in Wikipedia, that of establishing (with RS's) importance just to be included WITHIN a Wikipedia article. North8000 (talk) 21:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC) North8000 (talk) 17:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Addendum - Winkler actually doesn't state anywhere that it's not an important 2A ruling, what he DOES say in the sourcing is that the effect on gun control will be minimal. A minimal effect on gun control AliveFreeHappy (talk) 21:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Individuals Bearing Arms

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

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

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

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

True, the state militias were not directly federalized; however, most states let the National Guard become defacto the replacement of the state militia (with exceptions, most notably, the State of New York does maintain, train and equip a relatively vigorous state milita seperate from the National Guard, showing the law did not directly federalize the state militias. Essentially most state governors allowed the National Guard to assume thr role.) The gun control groups constantly point to the National Guard as being the modern day militia, although that is historically wrong. Presser was organizing a private armed body of workers opposed to a private armed body of "detectives" working for the bosses, neither an example of a militia sworn to support and defend the Constitution . Naaman Brown (talk) 19:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Poll, should we limit use of sourcing about Heller to material published in 2008?

There is a corollary question. Should when giving coverage to Heller in this article should we limit our use of sourcing to material published in 2008?

Please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) under the position you support, and please add a (hopefully brief and well thought out) comment.

This is massively ambiguous; could you clarify:

Are you asking about placing a restriction on the age of sources to nothing newer than 2008, or are asking or about mandating that material later than 2008 also be used, or that the current status to continue allowing suitable material from any age to be used or what?
If you are talking about a new mandate or restriction, are you asking about it applying to all Heller related coverage, or to just coverage of the decision itself? North8000 (talk) 21:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I am specifically referring to the wording in this policy WP:NPOV which says "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors." And, as I said, this is a corollary question to the poll asked just above, in other words, is the practice here when determining the "importance" to just consider things published in 2008. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 22:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Well no one has ever contended that the POV you want should be left out. But you are constantly suggesting that the POV that Heller is important doesn't exist. Does the quote above mean you're now ready to accept it as a significant view published by reliable sources? Since's it's non-negotiable, I guess it doesn't really matter. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 23:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

So I guess the question is: Should persons answering the "Importance of Heller" poll above be restricted to only considering 2008 and older material when making their decision?

That a HELL NO! How can we get material about Heller before Heller was even decided.71.184.184.238 (talk) 23:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

That was just my guess at the question. I don't think that there is any clear question in this poll. North8000 (talk) 02:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Should we also advocate a requirement to only use citations from before 1492 to support a flat Earth viewpoint, too? And also ban pictures taken from space, for blatantly "pushing a round Earth viewpoint". No. Of course not. Rather, we should not restrict article citations to prior to some arbitrary historical date to attempt a POV push to advocate a now dated viewpoint that has been overcome by Heller. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 19:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Longer Term Article Organization

I don't want to hide the "Importance of Heller" Poll above, (and the following one if a real question emerges) so please see above before reading this.

I tweaked a couple of titles with this in mind, but in those cases it was mostly to make them match their current content.

In the specific areas where the Supreme Court has held (ruled), those holdings have the unique status of being a part of the legal DEFINITION of the Second Amendment. Some folks do not like those rulings and have tried and will try to occlude them in the article, including with sidebar material from those very cases. So the Supreme Court HOLDINGS (rulings) need to be covered in a way that is resistant to such occlusion, e.g per the current section which is separate even from the other coverage of those cases. I can imagine a tidier organizational plan that would be better in a less adverse environment, I think that that separation is a realistic necessity in this article. Other section(s) (e.g. "Court Cases") could cover the other aspects of the cases and then have pointers to the rulings sections.

While not agreeing with Salty's efforts to occlude or displace Heller/ McDonald determinations with that questionable-at-best "impact" "analysis", I think that we will need to develop coverage of the post-Heller/McDonald legal situation, and also on the non-court impacts of those cases (e.g. dropping of laws without going to court). Some of this will be salient cases / items, other elements of it are inherently a "forest for the trees" situation and will need analysis/ summary type coverage. We'll need to search for and find some rock solid, high quality unbiased sources for that. Also having such analysis that presents what Heller did NOT cover (e.g. the "in-between" gun laws) would provide a better "foundation" understanding for the reader as events play out to what will probably end up being an additional Supreme Court case in the future. Keeping the "court cases" section updated to include (only) salient cases might also help in this area. Finally, the "commentary" and analysis type sections will probably need to get integrated and tidied up. Ironically, when I moved in the rulings and analysis sections in, the only real WP:editor written material I moved in was written by Salty (in deference to Salty) which is the current "Analysis" section. North8000 (talk) 10:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Other suggested work on court case material :

Drop the "Dred Scott c Sanford" case. Not a 2A case as far as I can see.
United States v. Cruikshank Material seems to conflict with McDonald. Review, and correct or update it if appropriate.
Miller v. Texas. Material seems to conflict with McDonald. Review, and correct or update it if appropriate.

North8000 (talk) 13:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. Overall it would be nice to think about the article at a high-level and decide what the topics are, what order, what sub-topics etc. For example your suggestions re court cases. We should do the same with history. As has been discussed before, much of the history section duplicates what is in Right to keep and bear arms. We should probably have 1 or 2 short summary paragraphs and a "main article" tag pointing to that, so that no one has to maintain duplicate versions of the same information. Probably all the court cases should be that way as well, IE a short (SHORT) summary including why it's related to 2A and a link to "main article". AliveFreeHappy (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Dred Scott does articulate the view that individuals who were citizens always had a right to firearms, and so is consistent with the individual rights viewpoint validated by Heller. A short mention of this case seems appropriate. Cruikshank likewise is important for understanding the history of interpretations of the Second Amendment. For completeness, they should probably be retained, but certainly not expanded upon any further. Short summaries are probably the best approach to handling these historical stepping stones. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 19:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

When I read those sections on those 3 cases in the article I ended up clueless on those points. They probably need to be re-written and summarized a bit with their relevancy to this article is mind. I don't know them well enough to do that. North8000 (talk) 17:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Lede wording issue

Currently in the lede is the sentence, “Two U.S. Supreme Court rulings in 2008 and 2010 clarified the scope of the Second Amendment.” However, later in the article, it says the following:

Justice Stevens’ dissenting opinion, which was joined by the three other dissenters, said:

“The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a "collective right" or an "individual right." Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.”

It therefore appears that the choice of the word scope in the lede sentence is inaccurate. Would a better choice be to say, “Two U.S. Supreme Court rulings in 2008 and 2010 clarified the meaning of the Second Amendment.”? Miguel Escopeta (talk) 19:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but if I recall correctly it was changed from meaning to scope because someone said that the "meaning" was POV. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 20:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

If meaning is POV (I don't see how, but I can certainly imagine which specific editor called it POV :-), we still need another word in place of scope, since scope is clearly inaccurate, or we need to cite meaning with a citation that says that. I advocate we use meaning and simply cite the usage with a cite that verifies the choice of word as meaning. It certainly doesn't appear that scope is correct, so there won't be a cite for that. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a wonder that anything came out of that chaos; in fact nothing ever will if we slip back into the morass.

Here's the lead that was consensused 2-3 weeks ago:

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights reads "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 infringed." The Second Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. The U.S. Supreme Court made influential rulings and interpretations of this amendment in 2008 and 2010, the first time since 1940. This Court ruled that this right is not based on membership in a militia and is an individual right. It also ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governmental authority to the same same extent that it limits federal authority. ^[4] An ordinance, banning handguns in the home, was found to violate this Amendment and was struck down. The Supreme Court also stated that it's ruling was not to be taken as an indication that all firearm restrictions are unconstitutional.

Other than use of the word "individual right" in a more or less ambiguous / unexplained way, I think that it was pretty good. North8000 (talk) 20:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Lots of "individual right" related wording in the sources I gave above re Heller. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 00:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the use of "individual right". It's just that one person was complaining about it, and it is a bit ambiguous as used. IMHO we should go with the above (even with that in there). We could tweak it later.

The bulk of the sources seem to use the phrase "individual right unconnected with military service" - why not go with that? AliveFreeHappy (talk) 00:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)'

Answering your question. Now, in 2010, it is perfectly clear in reliable sourcing that the term "individual right" covers a MUCH broader range of rights that the specific right that has been actually protected by the hundreds of post-Heller court rulings. It is simply sloppy and incorrect to use the overly broad term, when the specific form of protected right "lawful self defense within the home" is the ONLY form of individual right seen protected in courts post-Heller. Honestly, dwelling on the greater range is a POV push. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 17:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Why not just use the Supreme Courts own language which is currently showing in the article?71.184.184.238 (talk) 10:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

We need to insist on a higher standard of working together more objectively to get a good accurate article. I am absolutely SICK AND TIRED of seeing one editor continuously bomb everybody and everything with POV and WP:XXX charges whenever the material doesn't meet his agenda. We need to get him to dial back and join us as an active editor working towards that goal instead of continuous dominating, blockading, harrangeing, and indirectly insulting editors by calling everything that they do "POV". North8000 (talk) 20:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. The atmosphere was entirely unproductive with the incessant claims of systemic bias and POV with no attempts by the particular editor to actually contribute to the article. Rather than throw up roadblocks, editors should take a proactive helpful attitude. I have no doubt that he will be back after his block for edit warring expires. It is unfortunate that it came down to a 24 hour block, but perhaps that will help change the attitude to one of being friendlier to other editors, and actually helping to improve the article and make it accurate and up-to-date. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 05:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Would you two do a little soul searching please? This has degraded in to something personal. Instead attacking the person, can you address the policy content issues involved? It also would be helpful if you don't continue to ignore the points I am making and questions I am asking. Can we agree to follow the steps involved in WP:Dispute resolution can lead the way out of this "morass". SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 17:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not buying those verbal games anymore. It's time for you to genuinely change your MO here. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

For the record, my MO here is to want that WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV be followed. For instance, in NPOV we are to "in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." Yet, here the weight of POV is determined by the weight of the editors. That casts light on your personal attacks aimed at me personally. One option here is to follow WP:DR, do you agree to do this? SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 20:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

(added later, AliveFreeAndHappy was not responding to this) What you quoted refers to coverage of A subject. You were trying to misuse it to in essence say " I don't want the facts of "Subject A" (Supreme court rulings) to see the light of day so I want to hide them by changing the section on "subject A" into my favorite writer's opinion on "Subject B" ". I'm only addressing this as a preface to say its time to move onward and upward. Specifically, development of coverage of "Subject B" which would be post Heller/McDonald developments. Since you were promoting the importance of "Subject B" why don't you start working on / improving on a section covering post Heller/McDonald developments, but drop the concept of using this subject to prevent or obfuscate coverage of the Supreme Court decisions? Since it wasn't nailed down that this all applied to state and local laws until McDonald, court cases on state and local laws prior to McDonald are not very relevant to the picture, so you might want to give them (and analyses of them) less prominence. In contrast to the court cases (where Heller wasn't binding until McDonald) Heller was faster acting on political bodies where they dropped or modified laws based on Heller. North8000 (talk) 23:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. We have heard the policy issues over and over and over again. We do not agree with your interpretation. We have provided hosts of reliable sources, we have met all relevant policies to an unprecedented level, and still you claim that following the vast majority of RS is a POV push. I don't see that there is any way to satisfy you other than to let you WP:OWN the article. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 20:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Salty, a false accusation of a personal attack IS a personal attack. This is the second time that you have done that to me. Please stop. North8000 (talk) 22:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I, likewise, am not buying the incessant claims of systemic bias whenever recent sources are selected or used for citations, that represent the major shift in interpretation of the Second Amendment that occurred after the 2008 and 2010 Supreme Court cases. Providing mainstream references that happen to disagree with but one editor's viewpoint are not inherently indicative of systemic bias. Wikipedia policy does not say to ignore references after some particular date. Rather, this behavior is indicative of problems with but one particular editor's style of contributing to Wikipedia. It needs to change. The earth is not flat anymore. References did not cease to be created after 2008. Lets use all reliable sources, not just those that predate the US Supreme Court rulings in 2008 and 2010. It rather appears that this is but an attempt to censor this article. It needs to stop. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 03:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

It's even simpler and more fundamental than that. Salty was even trying to blockade coverage of even the rulings themselves. Other than Salty, nobody has started putting in material or analysis of viewpoints about it's impacts . non-impacts, significance etc. North8000 (talk) 12:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Is the reason you focus on my behavior instead of the discussing the article that you find it difficult to justify your position based on merit? For a change, address this policy question: Explain why the neutrality balance in this article is set based on the weight of the personal opinion of the editors who show up? Is this deletion of a well sourced paragraph[75] because one editor doesn't like it acceptable per policy? Or, is policy that we are to include all the significant POV's seen in reliable sourcing, including the POVs which we personally don't like? Can you answer these questions, or will you want to talk about my behavior again instead? SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 15:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Your paragraph makes another good case history. Going in sequence, discussion of behavior is not ad hominem. Second is the false implied premise, this is not "instead" of discussing the article in is addition to discussing the article. Next you buried a false implied premise in your "policy" question, and posed it as a vague accusation rather than a question specific enough to be answered. My paragraph about 20 lines up addresses the last time you got even 1/2 specific with that incessant claim, dissecting as a mis-use and mis-application of the policy. Time to stop the word games and change your MO and join the team trying to make this a good article. North8000 (talk)

Can you answer my questions? SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 12:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Both of your "questions" have such huge implied false premises in them that they are too faulty to answer and appear to have been worded mostly as a vehicle to assert those false implied premises. More word games.

Following WP:NPOV goes without saying, which bears no relation to the way that you were trying to mis-use it. North8000 (talk) 13:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Trying once again to engage a discussion about the article. This deletion[76] shifts the POV balance point, and involves the removal of a well sourced paragraph from the article. How does it "go without saying" that that deletion is within policy? SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 18:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I have corrected the wording in the lede, from scope to meaning. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 03:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I am curious why you say this, considering that it appears that the issue is addressed by the SCOTUS is which forms of bearing arms are protected. It isn't a binary question, but rather a question that bearing arms are protected sometimes yes, and sometimes no. In that situation, "scope" seems to be the more appropriate word. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 15:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that "scope" is a subset of the more general term "meaning" and the more general term is needed to be accurate, even though "scope" is a part of what they addressed. North8000 (talk) 13:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

New Section?: "Post Heller / McDonald Legal Developments" ?

Even though it would temporarily make the article's organizational structure messier, I think that this would be a good new section. And "legal" covers both salient court cases and laws. Whether one thinks that the impact of these is high or low, I think that both would agree that organizing material this way is useful. I was going to say "to show impact or non-impact" but that would be wrong. Ideally, it's just the salient developments and object RS analysis, let the facts show / not show what they will.

And as a general update, we should reduce coverage of pre Heller/McDonald lower level court cases to just the most salient ones.

What might be a bit more contentious will be does "Post Heller/McDonald" start in 2008 or 2010. Since Heller wasn't solidly applicable to cases on state and local laws until 6/28/10, I'm thinking that court case coverage should focus on July 2010 and later, plus cover the District of Columbia situation with the existing coverage pre-2008, and new coverage after 2008. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW, just for thinking purposes, regarding Heller impact on types of gun laws, I think that there are three Heller scenerios:

A. Those declared unconstitutional (e.g. total handgun bans) I think the impact is that all of those have been repealed and nobody is making new ones.

B. Those enumerated by Heller as excluded from the effects of it's ruling (e.g. possession by felons etc.) No impact in these areas is expected.

C: Those Heller really didn't comment on. (e.g. those making it difficult or expensive to own guns) This is the "Heller Limbo" area, which will be interesting to see how it develops post-McDonald. North8000 (talk) 18:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It would be most helpful if we could start this discussion by reading what the reliable sourcing has to say on the topic of "post-Heller" court cases. I agree that it is 'salient'. I disagree that editor's here should be deciding what to write based on our whim. Instead, per policy, we should be matching what we see in reliable sourcing. There are a number of articles I have read that analyze the "post-Heller" (and now post-McDonald) rulings relative to the Second Amendment. Which articles have you been reading? SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 18:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I was just suggesting a section for future development not saying that I have the knowledge and sources to write it, nor that the salient events have even occurred yet. Regarding what I've been reading, the gist of the hundreds of snippets that I've read is that the outright handgun bans have all been dropped, and that folks on both side of the issue are saying that, aside from that, the impact on laws remains to be seen. And I (just) skimmed the three sources that you once noted to me. If you want my personal gut feel, I have low regard for the objectivity and intelligence of those that claim that a bunch of cases that were doubly irrelevant (pre-McDonald cases on state and local laws, and mostly on the types of cases where Heller would not be expected to have an impact) show that the effects of Heller are known. And one of them was by a New York Times reporter which would typically have objectivity on a 2A topic somewhere below an opinion editorial. But that's just my initial quick opinion, and just lil' ole. me. Those sources probably SHOULD be in the new section. North8000 (talk) 19:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

If you have trouble feeling good about reliability of sources, I believe the correct method is to check with the Reliable Source noticeboard. Are you OK with using that method? SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 19:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Salty, why don't you just start writing the new section and use those sources. It can evolve from there. If a specific issues arises about a source we can deal with it then. North8000 (talk) 20:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Importance of Heller poll

Let's find out what if any consensus there is on the importance of the Heller decision. Sources abound in the article itself as well as on this talk page and in the archive. If someone wants to move them all to a single location that would obviously be a nice thing to do.

Please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) under the position you support, and please add a (hopefully brief and well thought out) comment.

Those who say Heller WAS an important decision:
- Yes - It established the individual rights view that was previously unsettled. It resulted in the 2A being later incorporated. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 20:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes I could write a book of information here to support this. Plus, AliveFreeAndHappy has already met a higher standard, so high that it doesn't exist in Wikipedia, that of establishing (with RS's) importance just to be included WITHIN a Wikipedia article. It goes beyond that. In the specific areas where the Supreme Court has held ("ruled") those holdings have the unique status of being a part of the legal DEFINITION of the Second Amendment. Some folks do not like those rulings and have tried and will try to occlude them in the article, including with sidebar material from those very cases. So the Supreme Court HOLDINGS (rulings) need to covered in a way that is resistant to such occlusion, e.g per the current section which is separate even from the other coverage of those cases. North8000 (talk) 21:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)North8000 (talk) 09:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- HELL YES! Heller was the most important second amendment ruling ever71.184.184.238 (talk) 23:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes - It defined the very meaning of the Second Amendment, thereby providing a legal framework for lower court rulings to become largely aligned in their handling of cases. In the absence of guidance, the lower courts had largely drifted apart in their interpretations of the Second Amendment. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 19:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Those who say Heller was NOT an important decision:
Those presenting alternative theories:

Thanks in advance for your participation. This is a non-binding poll just to see what others think. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 20:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The trouble with this poll it that it is polling the personal opinion of editors here. Interesting data, but irrelevant to the writing of a Wikipedia article. We instead are supposed to be reading reliable sourcing and writing an article that matches the sourcing. And, based on reading that sourcing what we see that is in the immediate aftermath of the Heller ruling, there was a lot written about the importance, but that interest quickly faded. Here is a WP:V article that analyses the importance of Heller, [77], stating that "Heller will not produce significant change to the American legal landscape" This fact checks with the analysis we are seeing of the post-Heller court rulings. Hundreds of challenges have been heard as to the constitutionality of gun laws, and essentially every case has affirmed that the gun laws are constitutional. This attention to Heller and McDonald is important to this article, don't get me wrong, but the excess fixation on these two recent events seems out of proportion to their actual importance consider the near zero actual effect seen. It seems that after two years, we would have seen some significant effect by now. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 13:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

United States v. Skoien

Nice job on updating United States v. Skoien SaltyBoatr. What I think is still missing is a brief, maybe one sentence, of the basis (the why) for the reversal. IE it's related to that part of the ruling that says reasonable regs are permitted. If you've got something along those lines, great. Otherwise I'll try to get to it when I get a chance. Kind of swamped right now. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 23:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Nice work Salty! North8000 (talk) 23:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The significant thing about Skoien is that it finds constitutional prohibitions on persons convicted of misdemeanors (which is expanded from the 'laundry list' given in Heller which included only felons and the mentally ill). This (following the 200+ other post-Heller cases)goes a long way to cement in the standard of review which was missing from Heller (and McDonald) as being something like an "intermediate scrutiny" level and not "strict scrutiny". See here[78] for discussion of this.

By the way, this recent edit[79] is pure WP:OR calling this 'collective rights' frankly is embarrassing due to the ignorance, we should have higher standards of WP:V here, and that edit (part of a long series of OR and POV motivated edits) should be fixed because it is a shame to see the high quality of the article degraded with blatant partisanship like this. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 14:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Handled. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 15:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

If it's true and otherwise good/useful for the article, perhaps 71 can find a source? North8000 (talk) 18:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

A reliable source that 2010 courts are interpreting gun law under a collective rights model? No chance of that. Even the most extreme gun advocacy blogs are describing this as a question of the standard of review to be used when measuring constitutionality of gun laws. This is the new McDonald world post-Heller: Which gun laws are constitutional and which are not. So far, total handgun bans for lawful immediate self defense within the home are the only examples of laws that fail the standard of review. This entirely relates to the the courts figuring out the precise scope of the 'presumptively lawful' wording. Skoien was significant because it resolved the circuit split[80], between the 7th and 11th, establishing precedence that prohibitions of misdemeanor criminals can also be considered presumptively lawful. This article should give coverage to this important aspect of 2A legal interpretation that we are seeing develop in the courts today. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 20:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The paragraph quoted stating that the ruling is based on the collective rights model, is directly from the case ruling and and a link to that ruling is provided in the cite. Check it out buckoes! 71.184.184.238 (talk) 22:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The link provided is the ruling and doesn't provide any analysis, but the paragraph you put in has analysis "used collective rights in defiance". Such a statement cannot be made without a reliable source. Please find one if you want to have this added. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 23:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

71.....why not put it all back in but without the analysis sentence? Not only is the the analysis sentence unsourced, but I don't think that it is precisely correct. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

You mean just use his 2nd paragraph? It might be possible, but snipping a single quote out of a court document without explanation is pretty poor form. It's easy for a reader to misconstrue . It should only be done if there is really no other way. Can we instead find some sources talking about the case and use their analysis, then put a proper paragraph or two in place? I'm pretty sure we can find multiple sources talking about this case. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 23:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The guy was hosed anyway, the law he was convicted under only applies to intestate commerce and doesn't apply to someone having arms for self defense or for hunting.

It shall be unlawful for any person—(9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce. 71.184.184.238 (talk) 23:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Seriously - do you have to be like this? You've been asked to discuss it on the talk page. Your statements are unsupported by WP:RS. You've essentially put your own analysis into reading the case, and now injected it into the article. That's just not what wikipedia is about. So far I haven't found any great sources, but here's a few we might want to read.

Skoien and the many challenges of Second Amendment jurisprudence is a brief summary of uncertainties and controversies remaining. While is shows some pro-2a pov, it seems to be a decent summary.
Split en banc Seventh Circuit in Skoien upholds categorical exclusion of DV misdemeanant from Second Amendment has a great paragraph I wish I could just steal and use "...lots and lots of very interesting and important passages concerning the natures, scope and future of Second Amendment jurisprudence. ...In short, this is a must-read and a case that is definitely worth continuing to watch...".
New Court Ruling Throws Cold Water on "Gun Rights" Celebration which says a lot of stuff from an anti-2a pov, but has a couple of good unbiased points as well "Significantly, Judge Easterbrook's opinion reads the Heller language not as created a "comprehensive code" of permissible regulations, but rather as standing for the broader proposition that it remains proper to bar gun possession by some categories of persons".

It would be great if a few of you could read the three sources - they're all very short. And let's see if we can create a proper summary to replace the currently unsourced, biased paragraph that keeps getting put in. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 23:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

My statement was supported by language taked directly from the court case to which I provided a link. Now why don't you click on that link and see if the quote I provided is actually within that case. 71.184.184.238 (talk) 23:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

And I hope you don't try the Salty objection about primary documenst. Been these, and answered that too many times already.71.184.184.238 (talk) 00:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Lets try this again

This is language directly from the court case Skoien moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that applying this statute to him violated his Second Amendment right to bear arms. The district court denied the motion, citing this court's decision in Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis, 185 F.3d 693 (7th Cir.1999), which held that § 922(g)(9) was constitutional under a collective-rights view of the Second Amendment. and this is a link to that case http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1499048.html UNITED STATES of America, v. Steven M. SKOIEN71.184.184.238 (talk) 00:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

You are incorrect sir. The language in your first paragraph is complete opinion. Nowhere in the court document you reference does it mention the decision being in defiance. In addition, your document is an older one from the original decision, and not from the recent decision. If you'll read the recent decision you'll find the actual basis the case was finally decided on. Note that you will not find the word "collective" anywhere in the decision. [81] This is the problem with using primary documents - it's easy to mislead. That's why we're only supposed to use primary documents sparingly. Certainly we cannot use them to push a particular opinion, such as the "in defiance" paragraph you have proffered. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 00:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

To summarize from WP:PRIMARY "avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." AliveFreeHappy (talk) 00:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Guys, let's slow down and chill out and enjoy this while we hash it out. I'd have to make a life out of this article to keep up with this while researching all of the brought-up points. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

My first paragraph is supported by the bold text above which is a direct quote from the case. Your primary document blather has been dealt umpteen times already with Salty. Wiki allows the use of primary documents as long as an intelligent person can make the connection between the wiki article language and the cited language. Further wiki policy states that in matters of law, legal cases are the PREFERRED source of source material.71.184.184.238 (talk) 00:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

My point is that your first paragraph is not supported by the direct quote from the case - it's a novel interpretation. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 04:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

If you had gone just one sentence further when reading WP:Primary you would have hit this one A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. I kninda think that a reading of the primary source language I provided shows at least one case after Heller, where the court used "collective rights" as a valid model. What do you think? 71.184.184.238 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC).

I haven't done the depth of analysis that you guys have on this, but IMHGO the one statemetn that sort of flags iself for scrutiny is:

"At least one the cases below uses the "collective rights" interpretation in defiance of the US Supreme Court ruling......" This sort of says or implies these things about "one of" the court cases:

That the court used the "collective rights" interpretation as a basis for their ruling
That that Supreme Court has made the "collective rights" theory defunct. (This is clearly true)
That the court defied the supreme court in the verbiage
That the court defied the Supreme court in their ruling

Maybe even before we look for sourcing, does anybody know for sure if any or all of the other three statements is/are true? North8000 (talk) 02:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

1 was true in the past, but is no longer true as of the latest ruling. The quote 71 is using is not from the current ruling.
2 might be true, but more likely is only partially true. The court rule that the 2A protects an individual right. It did not rule that it doesn't protect a militia based right.
3 is false
4 they give the basis for the ruling in the most recent document, and explain how it is in their view in line with Heller.

There seems to be no basis for the "defiance" claim in any source given. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 03:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

What I meant with #2 was "That that Supreme Court has made the "it's a collective right only" theory defunct. (This is clearly true)North8000 (talk) 10:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

"Skoien moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that applying this statute to him violated his Second Amendment right to bear arms. The district court denied the motion, citing this court's decision in Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis, 185 F.3d 693 (7th Cir.1999), which held that § 922(g)(9) was constitutional under a collective-rights view of the Second Amendment." seems pretty indicative that the court continued to give credence to the collective rights model. Also anyone who has ever read the opinion of the original court UPHOLDING the Chicago gun ban (pre-Mcdonald) would know that Presser instead of Heller was used as the guiding court case. Presser is probably the case most favorable to the collective rights model ever.71.184.184.238 (talk) 10:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Why not put what you know for sure in and let the facts speak for themselves, leaving out the interpretation? North8000 (talk) 10:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Making sense of primary documents, especially legal documents, requires technical expertise. This is especially problematic when editors do this by making selective quotes intended to be interpretive to advance their original research. It is policy here to use secondary sourcing. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 13:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The challenge is that source shopping can introduce even more bias. IMHO the situations that work the best in this area (where it is somewhat a matter of fact,) is when there is a consensus between high-minded editors on what is accurate and sourcable, and then find and cite the sources for it. North8000 (talk) 13:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. It is policy for us to read all the sourcing, and not just read the sourcing with which we personally agree. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 15:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

North: Stating that at least one court continued to use the Collective rights model after Heller ws decided is not an interpretation, it is fact taken from the language of the case cited. Also as I pointed above the Chicago gun laws challenged in McDonald were originally UPHELD by a court that chose to ignore the Heller individual rights language and instead go with the Presser collective right language. That makes it TWO cases that have used the collective rights model AFTER Heller was decided. If there are two cases, there are undoubtedly more to be found if one looks for them.71.184.184.238 (talk) 22:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello 71.184. I tend to start by looking for accuracy/preciseness first. I think that where I question you summary is:

Do we know that "collective" was used as a BASIS for the ruling, because that's what you sort of said. And the question of pre-post McDonald. If pre-McDonald, was Heller non-applicable, and if so, coud they be defying something that was non yet applicable? North8000 (talk) 22:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

This language sez that this court thought that the collective rights model was still a valid model. Skoien moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that applying this statute to him violated his Second Amendment right to bear arms. The district court denied the motion, citing this court's decision in Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis, 185 F.3d 693 (7th Cir.1999), which held that § 922(g)(9) was constitutional under a collective-rights view of the Second Amendment. This is not a ruling but indicative that the court thought that the collective rights model was still valid. The "original" ruling on McDonald was based on Presser - which is all about the collective rights model. That court INTENTIONALLY declined to use Heller because at that time Heller was not applicable to state laws as the Second had nor been incorporated. 71.184.184.238 (talk) 01:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

You know the facts on these cases and I don't. I was just trying to help sort out your summary statement. North8000 (talk) 11:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

My summary originally stated that some courts continue to use the collective rights model after Heller. My revised model said hat at least one court used the collective rights model after Heller and provided the court language showing that it did indeed use the collective rights model to justify its actions. If I sound mad - consider that fact that even a village idiot would be able to make the connection between my summary and the language I cited, and it is well within the means of "an educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge", to be able to verify as supported by the source. 71.184.184.238 (talk) 13:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree. The statement you made was clearly unconnected to the source you used. If you'd like, I'd be more than happy to submit it to a noticeboard and pledge to fully comply with whatever ruling they come up with in that regard. If they believe your quote "fits" then I will rescind my objections and apologize. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 00:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

(Let me know if you want me to "go away" on this and I will.) I think that the wording that they defied the Supreme Court raised the red flag. North8000 (talk) 13:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Didn't those two courts defy the Supreme Court? One used a model that the Supremes called "worthy of the mad hatter" as a valid model of law. The other case INTENTIONALLY uses a lower court ruling supporting that same "mad hatter" model, instead of the individual rights model. I don't know about you, but I think that INTENTIONALLY using a lower court ruling contrary to a Supreme Court ruling is in DEFIANCE of that US Supreme Court ruling. 71.184.184.238 (talk) 23:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen any source given to say there was defiance. One might say that they ruled in contradiction, but defiance implies a willful, intentional disregard that certainly isn't in the source given. Perhaps they simply believed that what they were doing is correct. Or rather than all of us trying to second-guess the courts intention (since defiance is all about intent) we could try using secondary sources? I'm not saying we cannot say they defied SCOTUS, I'm simply saying that such a statement needs better sourcing. If it's so strongly "true" and "obvious" then this shouldn't be a problem, let's just get the sources and be done with it. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 00:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

A lower court using a model of law that the US Supreme Court had declared to be "worthy of the mad hatter" seems like defiance to me. 71.184.184.238 (talk) 00:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

It's the statement "seems like defiance to me" that has me worried about sourcing. Just for grins I put it at OR noticeboard so we can get some uninvolved opinions on just this issue. I encourage you to go add your two cents there. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 00:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

It is the duty of a judge to research prior case law when making a decision. The judge in Skoien was either in dereliction of duty by refusing to read up on Heller, or dereliction of duty by refusing to apply what he has read. Take your pick. With the publicity surrounding Heller that judge was 100% aware that Heller existed.71.184.184.238 (talk) 00:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

But we don't have the luxury of "taking our pick" - we simply report what is said in reliable sources. It's not up to us to provide our own analysis. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 01:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Reporting an event is not an "analysis" of that event.71.184.184.238 (talk) 01:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Precisely, so let's only do that - report that the case was heard and decided and leave it at that. Leave out analysis such as "was in defiance". Then we're on solid ground. Or use the sources given above and broaden it out. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 05:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Timeline Ok, I've taken the time to study the case and layout an actual timeline of events:

1999 Gillespie v City of Indianapolis District court rules that 19 U.S.C 922(g)(9) is constitutional per a collective rights view

2006 Steven Skoien convicted. He moves to dismiss, arguing the law violates his 2A rights. Court denies the motion citing Gillespie

2008 DC v Heller makes it to SCOTUS, who rules that 2A protects individual right (at least for the feds)

2009 Skoien's conviction vacated by the 7th circuit citing Heller and a standard of "intermediate scrutiny"

2010 7th rules en banc (10-1) that while Heller applies, the level of scrutiny is incorrect and reinstates Skoien's conviction.

Note that the "collective view" decision mentioned in the court document is referring to an event that occurred pre-Heller and therefore is not in defiance. This is the case of an individual having read the court transcript and seen the mention of the earlier collective right ruling, and drawing an incorrect conclusion. Actually this lays out the case of not using primary court documents if at all possible, except in very limited careful ways. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 06:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Elimination of Supreme Court Rulings Section

(added later) See below for note on this section. Its all scrambled because Salty edited and complete modified what I wrote in the TALK PAGE (the title) and I reverted his edit of what I wrote North8000 (talk) 21:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

For the record it is false to say that my edit was "elimination". What I tried to do (after first discussing it on the talk page), was to combine together the article coverage of Heller into one place in the article. North8000 reverted this in what plainly is WP:OWN. It seem senseless and redundant to have Heller covered twice in this article, in two different article sections. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 14:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I reverted Salty's elimination of Supreme Court Rulings section. This would bury Heller at level four and Heller rulings at level 5. Maybe some consensused re-organization would be good, but this isn't that. North8000 (talk) 18:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems wrong to cover Heller in two different places within the article. Also, your concern of "bury" hardly seems logical, considering that the coverage of Heller in this article amounts to 25% of the article now. (about 4,000 words out of 16,000 total words) The total coverage of Heller in this article (4,000 words) is approaching the size of the Heller article itself! (6,800 words) What's up with this Heller fetish? Reliable sourcing says[82] that ""Heller will not produce significant change to the American legal landscape", yet we need to devote 25% of the article to Heller, redundantly too, split into two different sections? Not to mention the excess weight given to Heller in the introduction? What's up with this undue emphasis on Heller? SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 19:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Much of this has already been talked to death, and also polled. The core of what I'm talking about is in the areas where Heller held, such is of prime importance for unobfuscated coverage. Ditto for McDonald. So I'm talking about prominent coverage of the HOLDINGs in those two cases. So I'm not talking about the amount of real estate dedicated to Heller....in fact the history of this article was that sidebar material on Heller was occluding the coverage of the holdings, and it would be fine with me to reduce the sidebar material.

Regarding organization, perhaps an in-between solution is to have two top level sections....."Supreme Court Cases", and "Lower Court Cases. List them newest to oldest, and for at least the Heller and McDonald cases, have a separate so-labeled "Rulings" or "Holdings" section. ANy major change like this should be consensused, but that's an idea. North8000 (talk) 20:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been hoping that for things like Court Cases and History, etc. where there are already Wikipedia articles, that we could just summarize how they related to this topic and use a "main article" tag to let a person get the rest. That would trim this down, make it more readable, and avoid undue weight in trying to explain things that are clarified elsewhere. In that light, a short paragraph or two (maybe 3) should explain the basics of Heller and let someone go to that article for the rest. Possibly some the info here needs to be put there, but I haven't checked that yet. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 20:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with AFH, per the WP:SS, we should focus the coverage of Heller in the District of Columbia v. Heller article. Giving 4000 words of coverage in the 2A article to selected dicta from Heller is just wrong. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 20:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Mark that in your calendar boys - it's a rare day when Salty and I agree. ;-) LOL. Salty - do you happen to know if this article has anything that's missing in the Heller one? AliveFreeHappy (talk) 21:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Nothing of substance. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 21:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Well good then. At any rate, anything that article needs can be handled there. We should try and work-up a concise summary of Heller here probably before figuring out how/where to put it in the article itself. Anyone want to take a stab? I could, but I can't start on it till this evening at the earliest. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Salty permanently made a mess out of this talk section with a major edit ON WHAT I WROTE and completely changed what I wrote (the title) . I am writing about coverage of key RULINGS of Heller and McDonald, and deletion of having such a section in the article. NOT about general coverge of McDonald and Heller. Reverted his changes to what I wrote, but now its a mess. We might have to start over. North8000 (talk) 21:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

This article already had a concise summary of Heller, which was written two years ago. That coverage certainly needs to be kept up to date as new developments occur and are reported in reliable sourcing. The biggest new development has been that the standard of review which was missing from Heller and which was left up to the lower courts to figure out, now two years later has pretty much been determined. What North8000 has failed to explain for a long time now is why we should be giving undue weight (25% of the words in the article) to this one court decision. I agree that at the time of the ruling, there were plenty of reports in the sources of its significance. If you have been paying attention to the sources, the reports of significance have reversed and the sourcing is now saying[83] that the ruling has had very little legal effect. We must keep the article up to date with what we see in the sourcing. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 14:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Aside: Salty the source given above (lclark) seems to be saying that most people claim Heller is important, and that the author happens to disagree. It is written as an admittedly alternative point of view. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 16:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

No, what I want is what we currently have, approximately 4% or 5% of the article dedicated to an unnoccluded summary of what was ruled and held in the Heller decision. This defines several aspects of the legal meaning of the 2A and is of tantamount importance Prior to that what was here is what you wanted; the rulings/holdings mostly missing, or occluded by not identifying them such, or blending it into other sidebar material. North8000 (talk) 15:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Ruled and held?!? Bald POV push. What you are speaking of was not the holding. And, courts do not rule. You claim "is of tantamount importance". Says who? At best you have pointed to 2008 predictions of the future made in the immediate aftermath of the decision. Now, with the benefit of hindsight, reliable sourcing now is saying that your initial speculation was wrong. WP:NPOV requires us to give unbiased coverage, yet North8000 is insisting that we treat the 2008 speculation as WP:TRUTH. This violates policy here. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 15:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Salty it's pretty early in a Supreme Court timeline to be claiming that Heller was unimportant. It took 5 years for Heller to grind it's way through the system, and 2 more years after that for Heller to be applied to the states. Let's give it more than 4 weeks before we decide that it's had no impact. Besides, the sources we've seen at most say that it's had little impact on gun control. You've never given a source, and I've never read a source, that said it wasn't important. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 16:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Salty, we're all sick of you continuously accusing everyone of "POV" and the material of being "POV" whenever they put in material you don't like. The accusation here is particularly ridiculous. I put in a concise summary of the Supreme court holdings that is directly from both the Cornell School of law summary and the syllabus prepared by the US Supreme Court Recorder of Decisions. And you call that "bald POV push" And they BOTH said that the Supreme Court HELD those items, and you continue to say that these are not "holdings", this time linking to an article that has nothing to do with the word holding. And what is the basis of the gibberish of calling this summary of the holdings this PAST EVENT by Cornell and the US Supreme Court Recorder of Decision my "initial speculation" about the future and my "predictions of the future" ! And here I am again, wasting time responding to gibberish such as accusing their summary of a past event as being me making a prediction of the future... Huh? .....sounds like another phase of the blockade. It's time to quit doing this! North8000 (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

See this document[84] which you have already pointed to. See the section labeled "Holding" (about half way down the document). That is the holding of Heller. See the section that immediately follows which is labeled "Majority Reasoning". That it the reasoning, also called Obiter dictum. Can you see the difference between the holding and the dicta? SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 16:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

You just shopped through my 6 "second string" sources references for that and ignored the two main ones (Cornell School of Law and US Supreme Court Recorder of Decisions). The words I put in were theirs exactly, and they both said that the Supreme court HELD all of those things. North8000 (talk) 17:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)(edited source adjectives later to remove double meaning with WP terminology.) North8000 (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It is neither WP:DR nor WP:CIVIL to ignore questions. Can you see the difference between the holding and the dicta? SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 18:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Quit with the more bogus accusations and manipulative off-topic questions. The things that I have shown you that Cornell School of Law and the US Supreme Court Recorder of Decisions explicitly said that the Supreme court HELD, you are saying that they that they didn't HOLD. So either they are wrong (obviously not the case) or you are wrong(obviously the case) And you just won't stop. This is like talking to a brick wall... a waste of time. North8000 (talk) 18:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you please not attack me and just answer my question? Perhaps there is more than one usage of the word "held"? The legal term "holding" has a very specific meaning, and you seem be confused about this. Your source, see here[85] describes the Heller "holding", in the legal sense of the term. Can you see that? SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 18:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

See previous response. I wish you the best in real life despite your bad behavior in this article. Signing off. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Salty deleted the rulings section again and I reverted his deletion. If the chaos settles down, I'll try something in between. North8000 (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Look again, I didn't delete, I moved. Also, it would be helpful if you were to discuss this dispute. See WP:DR, thanks. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 20:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Why would state court rulings not be "lower court rulings". You mentioned "not federal law" but few of these involve federal law.North8000 (talk) 20:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

See federal law and state law. That section is describing laws of the State of Kentucky, Georgia and Arkansas, not federal laws. I would be OK with deleting it in its entirety because is if 100% redundant with this[86]. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 21:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I finished the "middle" ground organization and integration. As long as nobody tries to obfuscate the ruling sections in Heller and McDonald I'm cool with this. Otherwise we should revert to before Salty's huge change. The Heller and McDonald sections probably need an intro or "lead" sentence / paragraph if someone want to take a whack at it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

If something has to go in the article it should be that section devoted to the "placement of a comma". The state law section is valuable because of the lack of historical federal rulings on this issue. I am opposed to its removal.71.184.184.238 (talk) 00:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The state law section establishes the history behind the individual and collective right interpretations of the Second Amendment, since these interpretations first appeared in state jurisprudence, not in Federal Court jurisprudence. This section should therefore be retained here. Yaf (talk) 03:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. But what about the name of the section and where it should go. I'm thinking that we should move the "Early State Court Decisions" section into/under the "Lower court cases" seciton. North8000 (talk) 14:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

It would be hugely sloppy to blur together court cases based on the Kentucky Constitution with court cases based on the United States Constitution. Like confusing night with day. This would be embarrassing because sometimes people do come to this article with an expectation of a level of expertise that knows the distinction between state and federal law. Also, I do agree with Yaf, that these early state court cases are significant as part of the timeline of evolution of the American 2A viewpoint. The trouble has been lately, that this history of evolution of viewpoint has been scrubbed from the because of a misplaced logic that the Scalia's majority opinion has somehow re-written history. Scalia's modern viewpoint has not always been the dominate viewpoint. The actual turn of events is that this "standard model" era, which Scalia's Heller opinion epitomizes is yet another chapter in the American timeline of 2A viewpoints. I know it is is asking a lot, but if this is going to be an excellent encyclopedia article we need to step away from having the article be the front line on the POV battlefront. Instead this article should be a neutral and unbiased place to describe the full spectrum of this fascinating topic we call the Second Amendment. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 15:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The standard model was the original, which was then perverted by self serving judges, and I thank the LORD that 5 out of 9 US Supreme Court justices were loyal enough to their oath of office to move part way back to that original meaning so ably expressed by the judge who ruled on Nunn.

Nor is the right involved in this discussion less comprehensive or valuable: "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!71.184.184.238 (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah right. "Time after time, in dreary expectable ways, the quotes bandied about by Standard Model scholars turn out to be truncated, removed from context, twisted, or applied to a debate different from that over the Second Amendment. Those who would argue with them soon tire of the chase from one misquotation to another, and dismiss the whole exercise—causing the angry reaction from Standard Modelers that they are not taken seriously. The problem is that taking them seriously is precisely what undermines their claims." SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 16:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Time after time the research done by collective model authors turns out to be nothing but shit pulled out of their collective asses. see Belesiles!71.184.184.238 (talk) 17:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Predictable. See: "...—causing the angry reaction..." SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 17:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

So! Does your MO include pissing people off so that you can then report them and get them banned for a few days (or more)?71.184.184.238 (talk) 18:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

No. I am just following up on your twisted quotation. As if, somehow, your bandied quote from 1846 proves much about "the original" model of the Second Amendment. It is unlikely that Judge Lumpkin was even born yet at the time of the drafting of the Second Amendment, but you seem deluded into believing that your quote, (likely copied off some gun blog), can tell us that The Standard Model is the original model. Taking you seriously gets kind of hard sometimes. The quality of this article suffers when editors come here "Time after time, in dreary expectable ways..." and treat this article as a POV battleground, trying to score points for their team. It's embarrassing to watch. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 19:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Not that others are perfect, but you are by far the attempted POV-ing champion here, and also the champion at continuously accusing everybody of "POV" to cover for it. This isn't an attempt to start an argument, it's to say that it won't work anymore and to please stop it. North8000 (talk) 21:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Stop what? Tell me, do you agree that quoting from Nunn proves that the original American interpretation of the 2A was The Standard Model? You say "it won't work anymore", do tell, what will work in this editing enviroment? SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 21:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Making the general POV accusation about editors (plural)in general as you just did. And using it often and often with little or no basis, or in the face of clear info to the contrary. North8000 (talk) 22:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

You didn't answer two of my questions. Sorry your "clear info to the contrary" doesn't pass a sniff test. The present trouble here is that you are advocating that the NPOV balance point be set by the balance of personal opinion of the editors who show up here. Your silence is deafening when an editor who shares your POV writes things like "nothing but shit pulled out of their collective asses", then you only complain when an editor who doesn't share your personal POV asks a pointed question about the relevance of quoting Nunn. Look in a mirror if you want to see POV bias. I am advocating for NPOV, based on neutral reading of reliable sources coupled with fair and civil discussion of the article based on the merits. Honest observation now: You on the other hand keep using the talk page to dwell on editor behavior, and evade questions about the article. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 22:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about this current particular debate. I was talking the general POV accustioans that you were making about editorS in the paragraph that I wrote under. North8000 (talk) 23:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Salty This is from one of YOUR cites - http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/35FinalPartOne.htm This is what YOUR citation sez

In contrast to the State's Rights theory is what has become known as the Standard Model. [FN8] Under the Standard Model, which is the consensus of most modern legal scholarship on the Second Amendment, the Amendment guarantees a right of individual Americans to own and carry guns. [FN9] This modern Standard Model is similar to the position embraced by every known legal scholar in the nineteenth century who wrote about the Second Amendment: the Amendment guarantees an individual right, but is subject to various reasonable restrictions. [FN10]

so yes - The Standard Model is the ORIGINAL MODEL, and your "worthy of the mad hatter" collectivist model is something foisted on us by self serving judges, bought and paid for collectivist "thinkers", and control freak politicians.71.184.184.238 (talk) 01:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

My "twisted quotation" comes straight out of a court case. Where did your come from? The usual place collectivists get their ideas? or someplace uniquely your own?71.184.184.238 (talk) 19:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

You prove my point claiming something "straight out of a court case". WOW, impressive! You are quoting a court case! "..the quotes bandied about by Standard Model scholars turn out to be truncated, removed from context, twisted, or applied to a debate different from that over the Second Amendment." If you were actually reading third party reliable sources on this topic you would recognize what I am quoting from, but you don't. I cannot imagine changing your mind by telling you about reliable sources you would never read. Just Google it. Again, this is embarrassing to watch. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 20:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is impressive, because that comment "straight out of a court case" clearly shows that the right was originally considered to be an individual right. It was especially nice to see the US Supreme Court call your collectivist buddies "mad hatters". A most accurate comment on the level of their research abilities. BTW: Let me know if the following by Samuel Adams sounds collectivist.

Samuel Adams proposed that the Constitution ---> Be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless when necessary for the defence of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of their grievances: or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures.71.184.184.238 (talk) 11:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Nunn is dated 1846. These people alive in 1846 were not even alive in 1789. Calling it "was originally considered" is the kind of logic use by Standard Modelers. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 19:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

That ruling was made some 50 odd years prior to Presser, which was the strongest collectivist ruling you are ever likely to find in any Second Amendment case. Now this is a very very simple point which you don't quite seem to get and which I will repeat, "Nunn predated Presser". By your own argument calling Pressers collectivist ruling the "Original Model" is "outlandish" and even "worthy of the mad hatter". BTW: I noticed you avoided commenting on the quote by Samuel Adams during the Massachusetts Ratification debate. Which ruling is closer to that comment by Adams, Nunn or Presser?71.184.184.238 (talk) 15:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Does Gary Wills represents a small fringe opinion

Gary Wills is quoted as stating that

Time after time, in dreary expectable ways, the quotes bandied about by Standard Model scholars turn out to be truncated, removed from context, twisted, or applied to a debate different from that over the Second Amendment. Those who would argue with them soon tire of the chase from one misquotation to another, and dismiss the whole exercise— causing the angry reaction from Standard Modelers that they are not taken seriously. The problem is that taking them seriously is precisely what undermines their claims.

With the Supreme Court now siding with those that Wills bashes, and with all 9 justices, in the the opinion and both dissents, stating that the right protected is an individual right, and further stating in the opinion that the collectivist viewpoint is "worthy of th mad hatter", it seems clear to me that Gary Wills has either a "fringe opinion" with such a small following that it deserves only a passing mention, or holds to a "crazy fringe" opinion that does not require space in a wiki article.

His current extensive use as a cite source is therefore dispropoportional and excessive based on his "fringe" or "crazy fringe" opinions. I move that the use of Wills as a cite be either reduced or eliminated. 71.184.184.238 (talk) 11:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Even allowing for dating (Willis's quote may have been before Heller) that fact that he was bashing and insulting those with a then-mainstream and now-legally decided opinion shows that he is certainly not objective, and that for him promoting his particular viewpoint takes precedence over all else. He certainly can't be considered a reliable source for objective material or real analysis. But I think he could be a source for "here's what opponents to 2A rights are saying..." type material. There's a lower standard for that, where all that they need to have is an opinion. North8000 (talk) 15:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

With out a doubt, this source does not agree with you two. That is different than calling it not reliable. This 1995 paper by Garry Wills is frequently cited[87] in the 2A literature. The debate here is about whether we should write an article that tells the Standard Model viewpoint, or an article that describes the Standard Model viewpoint. You two what to tell the viewpoint as WP:TRUTH.. I argue that this violates WP:NPOV policy. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 19:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Salty, again you are trying to derail the discussion on numerous tangents. This includes avoiding the main issues of: fringe (asserted and supported by 71...) and un-objectivity (asserted and supported by me), creating a straw man argument ("does not agree with you two",)implying that a wp:truth essay is policy (many dispute it saying that sometimes there IS an objective and objectively verifiable truth/reality, and either way, 71's an my assertions do not rely on that ) And then another unsupported and specifics-free accusation of violating wp:NPOV. More of your same tactics and diversions. North8000 (talk) 19:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Please quit the personal attacks. You must have missed this, so I will repeat it: This 1995 paper by Garry Wills is frequently cited[88] in the 2A literature. A paper with this amount of attention does not come anywhere close to being a fringe point of view. And, in the case of the history of The Standard Model, plainly The Standard Model has not risen to the level of an "objectively verifiable truth/reality". So, the question remains, should this 2A article be written to tell The Standard Model, or should it be written to describe The Standard Model?

I didn't "miss" it, I just discounted it as not supporting your assertion. Second, for the third time. false accusations of personal attacks ARE personal attacks, so please quit that game. Finally your whole paragraph is faulty because it's foundation was refuting a straw man of saying I said something that I didn't (fringe) instead of what I actually said , the conclusion of which was: "He certainly can't be considered a reliable source for objective material or real analysis." North8000 (talk) 13:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I checked your list of supposed cites and found quite a few of those links to be "criticisms" and not cites. In one Wills was praising the "groundbreaking" work of Bellesiles which turned out to be groundbreaking only in the amount of lies it contained. 71.184.184.238 (talk) 12:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I added material from Parker to the "meaning of keep and bear" section. That material specifically states that one viewpoint of Wills was considered "outlandish" by the DC Circuit Court. That puts Wills in the "crazy fringe" category instead of just the fringe category.71.184.184.238 (talk) 12:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Wills is a journalist, not a legal expert and his opinion is therefore not notable. The popular perception of the issue is of course important, but we should use sources that discuss it, rather than use examples. TFD (talk) 13:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Your input on whether the current version of the article makes too much use of his views would be welcome.71.184.184.238 (talk) 13:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

"Meaning of to keep and bear arms" section.

I think that on paragraph in newly added material needs some refinement or clarificaton. The paragraph added by 71. starting with: "One authority cited by the District...." is confusing. is it a quote? If it is, could you say so clearly (who said it, stated as such etc..) If it's not a quote then I think some other tweaks would need to be made. 71..... since you put it in and have the expertise in that area, could you look at that? Thanks.North8000 (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Both indented portions are quotes from the Appeals Court. The cite has a link - click on the DC Circuit Court opinion for confirmation - its closer to the bottom then the top of the linked page. The page numbers where the quotes are taken from are included in the cite, but a word search works better. The "one authority" above is Wills and his opinion on "to keep" is called "outlandish" by the Circuit Court.71.184.184.238 (talk) 20:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The Appeals Court also states that "The argument (by Wills) that “keep” as used in “the right of the people to keep . . . Arms” shares a military meaning with “keep up” as used in “every state shall keep up a well regulated militia” mocks usage, syntax, and common sense."71.184.184.238 (talk) 21:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't question any of that. I was just saying that the "quote" part was not clear. IMHO It it could use a sentence saying that it is a quote. North8000 (talk) 10:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Systemic editor bias

See the thread just above. Here we see editors advocating to eliminate material from the article because it represents a point of view they don't personally share. This type of bias violates WP:NPOV. We are supposed to include all significant points of view seen in reliable sourcing. The neutrality balance point is supposed to reflect the balance point seen in the sourcing, and is not to reflect the opinions of the editors. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 14:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The ongoing claim of systemic bias sounds a little funny coming from SB. While he has claimed repeatedly he's against systemic bias, he doesn't seem to understand the concept. He's refused any chance he gets and on any grounds he can grasp, to allow any statements in an 2A related article that would indicate that the 2A protects an individual right, and that "bear arms" might mean "carry arms". His attempt to remove bias has had the net affect of protecting a particular bias - IE the "collective model" which based on statements on page he seems to believe is the "truth" in spite of the current state of affairs as outlined by SCOTUS. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 21:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

@AFH Your personal attack, of course, is not true. Why attack one editor? Instead, please address the concern I have identified. I fully acknowledge that some sources say that "bear arms" means "carry arms", this is especially true in the last three decades. The "truth" is that all sources don't say this. We must include all significant reliable sources. There has been rampant editing binge in the last three months which has removed the material giving coverage to the significant point of view which is not popular with the "individual rights" point of view camp. In light of this problem, the POV warning tag is warranted. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 00:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

This is not a personal attack but an observation. Anyone looking through this history of this article can see evidence of your behavior. You claim to be unbiased, but your edits and blocks to others edits support a single point of view. Your use of Wills above as a reliable source when it's an obvious hyperbolic opinion is typical of that. All we're looking for here is to produce a single good NPOV article. I recognize you're not the only one with POV issues, and others such as 71 need to tone down their rhetoric as well. But you've made a case frequently that you're up on a pedestal combatting systemic bias - this statement puts you in a position of either living up to your claims or being challenged on them. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 00:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It is an observation about another editor. Missing from your reply is reasoned response to my issues. We should be talking about issues, and not talking about other editors. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 02:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Overall behavior in the article is certainly a legitimate topic for discussion, and is not a personal attack. North8000 (talk) 10:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Here, it is being used as a technique to avoid discussion of the article issues I have raised. Stonewalling. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 17:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no stonewalling. This section begins with a false assertion that your fellow editors are removing content because they disagree with that content. The responses appear to be a reasonable discussion of that false assertion. Celestra (talk) 17:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Celestra writes: "false assertion"!?! This is astonishing, considering just two lines away the Anon71.184.184.238 flatly declares[89] his " I never claimed to be unbiased" POV pushing intent. See the page history for the trail of the POV pushing edits[90][91][92][93][94][95][96][97][98][99][100][101][102][103][104][105][106][107][108][109][110][111][112][113][114][115][116][117][118][119][120][121][122][123][124][125][126][127]. I do give Anon71.184.184.238 credit for being direct in the admission that his edits here are intended to advance his personal point of view, he doesn't deny his bias. He boldly confesses that his edits here are POV pushing, and he is proud of that. The issue I ask is whether the tolerance of this long series of POV pushing edits comport with WP:NPOV policy. This is issue I am trying to discuss, there there appears to be an coordinated attempt to discuss SaltyBoatr, and to avoid discussion of this pattern of admitted POV pushing edits by Anon71.184.184.238. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 19:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Having a POV is not the same as being a POV-pusher. 71 merely admits that he has a point of view, not that he pushes his point of view. All editors have opinions and viewpoints...and most recognize that fact and are better, more neutral editors for having that understanding. Celestra (talk) 20:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

You should have written "not necessarily the same as being a POV-pusher", because specifically in this instance we see evidence of POV pushing. When examined here, this doesn't pass the sniff test. Anon71.184.184.238 has a long pattern of POV skewed edits, (mixed with a lot of WP:OR too), look at the diffs just above. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 21:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

You are correct that sometimes 71 makes POV edits. However, I did a quick perusal of 5 or 6 of your diffs, and the only way one can construe many of them to be POV-pushing is if you start from an assumption that the "collective" model is correct and that the "standard" model is non-standard. Again, I didn't look at them all, but it may be that somewhere in the list are stronger assertions, since I definitely have seen problematic edits from 71. None of this would excuse anyone else's behavior though. 71 has declared himself as a partisan and many editors here, you and I included, work to improve problematic edits. But constantly asserting the "collective" model as fact is also a particular POV. As Celestra ntoes above, we all have opinions, and when we recognize that it makes it easier to work through it. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 21:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

My saving grace is that I have managed to stay out of edit wars, unlike Salty. I admit to being in a few skirmishes though.71.184.184.238 (talk) 01:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Unlike Salty, I never claimed to be unbiased. My personal belief is that governments at all levels are forbidden from ANY infringement on a persons ability to possess, use and train with the normal weapons used to equip a militia. In Revolutionary War times that included cannon, and today it would include everything up to tanks and artillery. Call me extreme!71.184.184.238 (talk) 00:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

section break

The material in question is not mainstream and is either "fringe" or "crazy fringe". One court having examined some of this material calls it "outlandish", thereby placing it in the realm of "crazy fringe".71.184.184.238 (talk) 15:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Fringe is not determined by your opinion, or a court's opinion. Fringe at Wikipedia has a different meaning (or, it is supposed to have). The policy says: "...all significant views published in reliable sources should be represented fairly and proportionately." You have systematically removed views from this article for no other reason than you call them "fringe". These views are published in reliable sources. Applying your "court" measure, many of these views are supported by 4 out 9 supreme court justices, plus innumerable highly reliable books and journals. Yet, you strip them out of the article. This violate policy. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 19:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Salty, you are again posturing, and completely changed and mis-stated what I said. So, here it is again, verbatim:

Even allowing for dating (Willis's quote may have been before Heller) that fact that he was bashing and insulting those with a then-mainstream and now-legally decided opinion shows that he is certainly not objective, and that for him promoting his particular viewpoint takes precedence over all else. He certainly can't be considered a reliable source for objective material or real analysis. But I think he could be a source for "here's what opponents to 2A rights are saying..." type material. There's a lower standard for that, where all that they need to have is an opinion. North8000 (talk) 19:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Salty! Don't transfer YOUR failings onto me. I am not the one pushing a viewpoint that the Supreme Court has stated is "worthy of the mad hatter". 71.184.184.238 (talk) 19:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Salty, your statement that 4 of 9 justices agree with Wills is suspect. Please show where 4 of 9 justices agree with Wills that "to keep" arms only makes sense in a militia context.71.184.184.238 (talk) 21:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Removed the article POV label. The elevation of one author to push a point that was always controversial, and which is now counter to the majority ruling by the Supreme Court is not reason to mark the article as POV. Heller and McDonald have clearly exposed the falseness of the author's assertions. The author is OK for discussing an history of failed interpretations of the Second Amendment, but not for a current interpretation of the Second Amendment. Labeling the article as POV to insert a now discredited POV is not the purpose of the POV label. This is in agreement with the noticeboard comment here. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I question your premise that the courts trump Wikipedia policy. The policy here is to fairly represent significant viewpoints published in reliable sourcing. Where does that policy say "counter to the majority ruling by the Supreme Court is not reason to mark the article as POV"??? The Supreme Court has no bearing on WP:V policy, please explain why you think that it does? SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 21:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, you are misquoting and mis-using Wikipedia policy. And again, you have made a complete misstatement of the situation, presumably hoping that someone will be fooled by it. North8000 (talk) 21:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not a case of the court trumping Wikipedia policy. One might more properly say that the courts interpretation of the model to use for the 2A trumps any legal scholars interpretation. It's a matter of the courts having established the legal meaning of the 2A, thus making much of the earlier discussions about what it might or should mean into an interesting historical footnote. Not that they shouldn't be mentioned, but they certainly no longer need to be the prominent item in this article. There is a lot of post-Heller commentary now that states that Heller settled the "standard" vs "collective" issue. Imagine that we were trying to continue to state that "separate but equal" is a valid legal theory - it would be silly.AliveFreeHappy (talk) 21:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a notice board discussion of this topic at [[128]] North8000 (talk) 21:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I want to go on the record that I personally approve of SaltyBoatr taking this to the noticeboard. It's a fine idea to get external opinions on contentious issues. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 21:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

^ The Washington Post, ed. (2009). Washington Post Supreme Court Year in Review 2009: The Major Cases and Decisions of 2008 (Kindle Edition ed.). Kaplan Trade. p. 408. ISBN 978-1427798022. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)
^ Doherty, Brian (2008). Gun Control On Trial: Inside the Supreme Court Battle Over the Second Amendment (Kindle Edition ed.). Washington, DC: Cato Institute. ISBN 978-1-933995-25-0. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)
^ Pollock, Earl (2008). The Supreme Court and American Democracy: Case Studies on Judicial Review and Public Policy. Greenwood. p. 376. ISBN 978-0313365256. {{cite book}}: More than one of |pages= and |page= specified (help)
^ Justices Extend Firearm Rights in 5-to-4 Ruling

[1] Justices Extend Firearm Rights in 5-to-4 Ruling

[CornellHellerSummary-2] Cite error: The named reference CornellHellerSummary was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[3] The Washington Post, ed. (2009). Washington Post Supreme Court Year in Review 2009: The Major Cases and Decisions of 2008 (Kindle Edition ed.). Kaplan Trade. p. 408. ISBN 978-1427798022. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)

[4] Doherty, Brian (2008). Gun Control On Trial: Inside the Supreme Court Battle Over the Second Amendment (Kindle Edition ed.). Washington, DC: Cato Institute. ISBN 978-1-933995-25-0. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)

[5] Pollock, Earl (2008). The Supreme Court and American Democracy: Case Studies on Judicial Review and Public Policy. Greenwood. p. 376. ISBN 978-0313365256. {{cite book}}: More than one of |pages= and |page= specified (help)

[6] Justices Extend Firearm Rights in 5-to-4 Ruling

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]