Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Sandbox

I have moved the disputed section over to a sandbox, so we can work out our problems while the article is locked.

See here: Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution/english_history_sandbox

Let's work out the problems now please by finding agreements and improving the sourcing and neutrality, thanks. I started by focusing on some the unresolved concerns, and welcome collaboration with others. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 14:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I have started this by making a number of edits to the draft text, and added some "original research" tags to the lines that probably can be fixed by doing our homework and finding verification in third party reliable sourcing. (Check the page revision history to see some of my comments.) I invite other interested editors to go to that sandbox and make their edits to help with the hard work of finding a mutually agreeable compromise, and one which complies with WP:Policy here. The sooner we complete this negotiation, the sooner this article can be unlocked. Let's get to work. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 16:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The current English section reads like crap, and is full of it as well. The Civil War was not a struggle between a Catholic leaning monarch and Parliament. The English Civil War was a struggle against a PROTESTANT monarch who believed he could do whatever he liked, whenever he liked, to whoever he liked. That type of conduct is called "tyrannical". The article then can be taken to read that the Protestant militias disarmed the KING. HEEEELLLO! The use of periods at strategic points would be appreciated. Like I said, reads like garbage and is full of it as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.120.38 (talk) 02:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

From the wiki article on Charles I

Charles I believed that he had no need of Parliamentary approval, that his foreign ambitions, which were greatly expensive and fluctuated wildly should have no legal impediment, and that he was himself above reproach. Charles believed he had no need to compromise or even explain his actions and that he was answerable only to God, famously stating: "Kings are not bound to give an account of their actions but to God alone".[33][34]

F —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.120.38 (talk) 03:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The Divine Right was part of Charles I claims, but anyone claiming that Charles I was of the protestant religion is being fanciful. He was head of the "Catholic Church of England" - the reformed Anglican Church of England still claimed to be Catholic albeit without subservience to Rome. Hence the main references in the day was to "papists" - i.e. those that wanted to bring the Church of England back under the authority of Rome - which was as much a political threat than it was a religious one. Belonging to the Anglican church (or even being the head of the church as Charles was) does not per se make you a Protestant. The Anglican Church has always sat somewhere between pure protestantism and its Roman Catholic heritage. --Hauskalainen (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you cut out the derisive personal comments, they distract from what we are supposed to be doing here, which is writing this article. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 14:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Hauskalainen - A Protestant is someone who "protests" the claim of the Catholic Church to be the one true Christian religion and the claim of the pope to be the leader of all true Christians. The Anglican Church which denies both, therefore falls into the Protestant camp. Its head is the Archbishop of Canterbury and not the pope and certainly not the king as you state above. Per this site http://www.boisestate.edu/courses/westciv/english/04.shtml Charles I was not openly a Catholic.

Salty. I know what a protestant is and many regard the Church of England as sitting somewhere between Catholicism and Protestantism. When the Church of England was formed it was called the Catholic Church of England. Only the titular head of the church changed. Catholic here meaning "having broad appeal". Many who stayed with the Church of England still thought of themselves as being Catholic even though the King and not the Pope was at its head. Only much later did the church take on some protestant character. But the spiritual beliefs of the people and their off-spring never changed overnight and the church divisions away from Roman Catholicism which was very strong in Germany and Scandinavia as well as the remoter corners of the British Isles, the Church of England steered a very middle course. The disputes between Protestants and Catholics in England were more or less political quarrels and not religious, odd as that may seem. Thus people in those days did not find it hard to switch church allegiances and the same can be true even today. As for instance was the case with [[Tony Blair}}. Many today would not be opposed to the King becoming a Catholic and the laws of succession are often mentioned as being ones that would receive today quite wide popular support. Blair no doubt decided to avoid changing his allegiance until after he left office. It would be hard to accept a Catholic Prime Minister making recommendations as to the successor of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Nevertheless, in the 19th century England had a Jewish born Prime Minister so it is hardy without precedence. --Hauskalainen (talk) 12:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Much of the conflict between king and Parliament centered around religion. Charles was widely believed to favor Catholics, if not himself secretly one. 96.237.120.38 (talk) 23:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I've always thought of the Anglican Church as not being quite Catholic, but not being quite Protestant. Its usually placed in the Protestant category, because it was created in opposition to the Catholic Church. Perhaps it would be better not to refer to it as being Protestant or Catholic. SMP0328. (talk) 23:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The English, the vast majority of whom are members of the Anglican Church and who did in fact revolt so that they would not be forced to become Catholics, don't consider themselves Catholics. See Glorious Revolution - the term "papist" - and of course the fact, pointed out repeatedly in the article, that "Protestants" are the only English group allowed a limited right to arms. " having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law." Can we now stop rehashing obvious material? or doesn't anyone here actually READ the article?96.237.120.38 (talk) 12:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

militia sentence

Responding to the AnonIP edit at the sandbox about militia, the proposed text: "In both England and America, subjects and citizens have created militias, many times of their own free will, without government sanction. " If that is a true statement, I need to see some sourcing. I have read many if not most of the books in the article bibliography, and I don't think any of them say that militias were "many times of their own free will". What the sourcing says is that mostly (actually always) the militias were formed on the order of the government. In the cases of the revolutionary militias, they were sanctioned by the local provisional rebel governments, like the Massachusetts Provincial Congress who met to keep and call up a militia in 1774[1], and the 99% rest of the time when not revolutionary, the militias were government. I think it is fair to summarize the sourcing as saying a group of people were gathered together not authorized by government would be described as an armed mob[2], or insurrectionists (as with Daniel Shays) where were crushed by governmental militias. That said, I tried to neutralize the sentence to be ambiguous about the origin of the militia. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 14:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

That said, we need to continue to work to come to agreement as to a consensus about the disputed text. See the sandbox[3] for the most current version of this work towards consensus. Hopefully everyone interested can edit there, and in the near future we can move that sandbox live into the article to end this dispute. Thanks. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 16:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Any militias forms in Pennsylvania during the two decades prior to the Revolution were voluntary. The Pennsylvania colonial government refused to set up a statewide militia. From my readings the Massachusetts militia was voluntary and the leadership of that militia was elected by the members of the militia. Officers were not appointed by the Massachusetts government.96.237.120.38 (talk) 22:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

To SB: Before the Revolution, most if not all of the colonies were run by "colonial governors" appointed by the king. If you need to be told that those colonial governors did not set up the militias who resisted them, then even the making of mud pies is beyond your speed. http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/ "He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them."

English Section - Possible Compromise

After looking at the sandbox, I've come to the conclusion that I would much rather use a version of the English section, as it was before the SB/Hauskalainen conflict, as a starting point for further edits. The current version needs too much fixing up.96.237.120.38 (talk) 14:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I actually think this idea is a good one, to start with a "last stable version" and then work forward. This has the complexity that the giant overhaul of the footnotes done by Andy85719 occurred simultaneously with Hauskalainen total rewrite the English history section. It is unfortunate that Hauskalainen (and Andy85719) seem to have now disappeared. We still have this open dispute, some discussion is needed. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 14:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

OK trying to keep this moving forward, I just updated the sandbox to change the proposed compromise English History section back to the last stable version prior to the conflict. Consider this a starting point and lets all try to find a mutually agreeable compromise for this section. See here: Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution/english_history_sandbox SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 12:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I haven't disappeared (I do have a life outside of Wikupedia, and I do not get paid for my efforts here). I certainly do not agree with the suggestion that the start point is the start point in the article before this dispute broke out. That was a primary objection I had. It implied that there was some relationship betwwn the laws made in the early middle ages concerning an obligation to carry arms and those made during the period after the civil war when it was about the right not to have ones arms taken away without due process. As I have explained, this seemed to have been done to further a myth - one that said that the English gained a right to have arms for their individual and collective defense only by executing one king and ousting his royal successor once removed and the getting the new joint monarchy to agree to "granting" new rights. Futhermore the claim that this was only a right given to the "winning" protestant / parliament side and not to the "losing" catholic / royalist side. This is a total distortion of history.

• there was no grant "given" because the right was an ancient one.
• there was no negative discrimination in he Bill of Rights against non-protestants. Rather positive discrimination for protestants guaranteeing their rights and righting a wrong which had happened iunder the previous monarch
• there is no connection between the Bill of Rights and the obligation to have arms for defense. It is disingenuous to begin the story of the Bill of Rights there.
• worse still, the text had at one time implied that only a few people had the right to arms. This is incorrect. People had arms for hunting as well as for personal and collective defense.

We need to tackle first of all the BIG PICTURE, and the myth versus the reality issue. They cannot both be true. Either the right to keep and use arms in England (and in the second amendment) were new rights or they were not. They cannot be both at the same time. More likely I think that they were old but never before written down. Would SaltyBoatR I wonder argue that Boudica managed to defeat the Roman occupiers of Briton on several occasions without the use of arms? In Colchester, St Albans and London (though not known by those names at that time. Does he try to claim that her arms were illegal? On what basis I wonder

Once we have determined where the main evidence lies then we can tell the story. I repeat what I said earlier you cannot begin with a story they tells of a growing right. It has been a right pretty much since prehistoric cave times. It did not suddenly disappear (at least if it did, SaltyBoartR will be able to tell us when that happened because it'd certainly have been a significant event that he would know about. --Hauskalainen (talk) 16:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I hear your complaint which you summarize as: "That was a primary objection I had. It implied that there was some relationship betwwn the laws made in the early middle ages concerning an obligation to carry arms and those made during the period after the civil war when it was about the right not to have ones arms taken away without due process."

Can you hear my complaint? My complaint is that when I look at the book by Joyce Lee Malcolm (1996). To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0674893077, I see that this book contradicts what you claim. Professor Malcolm argues in quite some detail that there is a relationship between the ancient duty to bear arms, and the modern right to bear arms. I say we cannot ignore what we read in that book.

Can you suggestion a workable compromise between your position and my position? Please answer my question. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 16:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

We need to keep working on finding a compromise. The point of the article lock is to encourage us to discuss and resolve things on the talk page (as opposed to reverts in the article space.) If we don't discuss it now, when? SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 14:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion

I came here in response to a plea posted on Wikipedia:Third opinion. This is a rather complex discussion. After reading the debates on this page, I think one point of Wikipedia policy needs to be pointed out:

What matters on Wikipedia is Verifiability, not truth.

Hauskalainen appears to be concerned with truth, but I don't see Hauskalainen offering up alternative reliable sources to back up his/her arguments. SaltyBoatr appears to be more concerned with what one particular source says. That should be the concern here: What do the sources say, not what the truth actually is.

Did I miss something? I can't quite tell if you two are arguing about interpreting the source in a way that changes its meaning, versus arguing one set of facts versus the source. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the third opinion. (Actually, you are about the sixth editor giving a similar opinion.) You got it correct when you wrote about Verifiability, not truth. Hauskalainen's argument is that earlier version[4] of this "English History" section contained "myth", and which he has replaced which his original research which is "the truth". (That prior version was stable for at least a year and was cited to about a dozen reliable sources and reflected the full spectrum of significant POVs.) The article now locked after his revert war to preserve his original version of "the truth" which he put into the article. We are supposed to be discussing this to work our our disagreements, and you can see how well that is going. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 21:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

When can we expect SaltyBoatr to provide evidence for the position he is trying to defend, which is that the English possessed NO rights to have arms for their self or collective defense before the twelfth century? This is his most astounding claim and it has to be supported by someting rather more substantial than a small line from which we are left to suppose that this was the case (because the writer Malcolm does not out and out claim that the English had zero rights to arms). This is only supposition which the reader has to have to make sense of her claims. And when will he (SaltyBoatr) explain how that that right was ever lost because it would have to have been taken away by somebody somehow? Then there is his supposedly clever argument that aomehow it is encumbent on me to prove that the English DID have rights in the early twelfth century. I am not a philosopher but I am sure that his demands that I have to prove that such rights existed are not logically do-able or even reasonable. It is akin to the question "When are you going to stop beating your wife"? You cannot really answer it one way or another because it itself is based on a false proposition. Earlier on in this discussion I posed the following point.

The argument that I must provide a reference for the common law right to keep arms for self defence is no different to asking me to provide a reference for the right that I have to keep milk in my refrigerator. There has been no law preventing me from keep milk in my refrigerator, nor is there a law preventing me from keeping an iron bar under my bed. I have a right to keep an iron bar under my bed just as much as I have a right to keep milk in my fridge. I can also walk down the street carrying milk just as freely as I can carrying an iron bar. The argument you are making is akin to saying that I have NO RIGHT to keep milk in my refrigerator because it has not been declared in some legal document (a law, a decree, or my nation's constitution).

His argument, that I must prove the existence of liberty to bear arms is really is intolerable because it is akin to asking me to provide a WP:RS that an English mother had a right to keep milk in a cool place in the twelfth century. Why would anyone ever wish to assert that? Only if that right had been taken away would it even be discussed! To prove the existence of a right of freedom of action is very difficult because generally the law is only about the curtailment of freedoms for some greater good. Not to drive whilst under the influence; not to sell food that is unfit for human consumption: not to carry out the services of a physician without proper training. It is a nonsense to expect me to "prove" the existence of a right or a liberty to do something. The nonsense that there was a time before the 12th century when having arms for self or collective defence must be supported by a demonstration of an historic event which caused this liberty to be lost. It would have to have been a momemtous occasion that must be recorded in history somewhere. Why cannot SaltyBoatr tell us when that happened? The simple answer is because it never did happen. And I suspect he knows it.

What does our Third Opinion have to say about that?--Hauskalainen (talk) 23:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Answering the question directed to me: I am just trying to read third party reliable sourcing (including the sources I don't personally agree with) and then to write an article that matches the sourcing. Regarding the question of "right or liberty" going back into ancient times, I haven't read enough to have a solid idea of what the sourcing says. It looks like Hauskalainen has read more than me. I welcome the chance to read what Hauskalainen has been reading so I can confirm what he says, but he hasn't disclosed what secondary sourcing he has been reading. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 14:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

What I have to say about that is the same thing I said originally: Verifiability, not truth, is what matters on Wikipedia. Pause a moment to understand what that means. The existence of a right need not be "proven" — no one has demanded such proof — it merely needs to be asserted by a reliable source. Editors here are not reliable sources for such assertions.

The absence of a law does not automatically imply that a right existed. Therefore, a Wikipedia article should not take a position. To conclude that a right exists based on the argument above, amounts to a violation of the policy Wikipedia:No original research.

As an analogy, there is no law in existence (that I know of) that specifically prohibits me from falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater. Does that mean I have this right, because this instance of "free speech" isn't specifically prohibited by any law? The answer is no (if you look at the article I wikilinked, it's a documented court case). Yet, because the law is silent on this particular instance of speech, Hauskalainen would have Wikipedia taking the position that I do indeed have this right? Courts would disagree. Therefore Wikipedia can't take a position based on deductive logic.

Of course it's nonsense to "prove" the existence of a right. But that isn't necessary here. Wikipedia isn't about proof. All one has to do is find a reliable source that advocates the same thing that Hauskalainen is asserting, that the right to bear arms existed prior to the 12th century.

I suggest that the article say that common law didn't (or failed to) address the right to bear arms for individual or collective defense before the twelfth century. Beyond that, one cannot conclude anything about the existence of such rights during that period, unless a reliable source is identified that draws a conclusion. Drawing a conclusion without citing a source would violate the Wikipedia:No original research policy. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not convinced that you are just an innocent watcher of the second opinion page who happened to stumble into this argument. I believe you are a part of the cabal of Wikipedia editors created to make this page seem to be edited by people with a variety of views, but in fact the cabal member even take contrary positions at times just to give the article the impression of being edited by people of various ideological persuasions. All I am saying is that that the right to have arms for one's own defence is an ancient right. It existed before the second amendment was written and even before the similar passage in the English Bill of Rights was written. It is a natural right and not a right granted by any legal body (King, parliament, founding fathers or what have you. It is that simple. I don't see why you don't insist that SaltyBoatr provide evidence that the right DID NOT EXIST in the 12th century. That is, in effect what he claims yet it is NOT what his source says. The way the article is written is to subtley suggest that the myth which Salty wants us to swallow has some validity even though NO SERIOUS SCHOLAR as far as I can tell is really advocating this. It is the cabal at work here that wants to create this impression. Salty is, I believe part of this cabal and for all I know, you may be too. Paranoid?? I don't think so. --Hauskalainen (talk) 16:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Hauskalainen, can you please assume good faith? Attacking editors with whom you disagree is not acceptable. TFOWR 16:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It would be right to assume good faith if there was no evidence againt not doing so. (Sorry for the double negative). In fact the evidence rather supports me. You only have to go back to October 2008 to find an another innocent passer-by making this change. The edit is the very edit that I myself would like to put in the article. But whereas I have to provide a reference for my making such an edit, this editor does not, it seems, have to do so. So who is it making this edit? Oh! Goodness gracious me! It happens to be the very same editor who chides ME for making edits without a citation and who wishes to assure everybody that Wikipedia is not about TRUTH but VERIFIABILITY! Sorry, but I am not having any of it. There is a cabal at work here trying to use a very weak statement in a particular book, albeit by a reliable though POV source, to make a most outrageous claim... that there were no historic rights to arms by the English until some got an obligation and then 500 years later a "right" to have arms. SaltyBoatr's source actually does not state this though with some prompting might one believe that she does. In fact she clearly does not believe this at all. I found this article by reading the Wikipedia article history of October 2008. Hmm... The very same Joyce Lee Malcolm says the following:-

"As Robert Cottrol points out, the American colonists took from England the tradition of armed individuals responsible for their own safety and for general peacekeeping duties in the larger community. Only one aspect of these duties was service in the militia. Common law, as practiced in both Britain and America, appreciated the need for men and women to be able to defend themselves and permitted them to do so. There was also, of course, a long philosophical tradition that a free man was a man who was armed. All this seems unusual today, not because there is no longer a need for self-defense, but because most governments, including the British government, have not trusted their people to be armed and have, instead, insisted on a monopoly over the use of force"

It would be interesting to see who put this into the article and who later who took it out. Would you like me to continue to find out who did this? It might be interesting but it'd take me a little while. And I believe that you too are part of the editing cabal. Sorry if you think that too breached WP:AGF but I think I'll find that the record shows this too. --Hauskalainen (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

And I believe that you too are part of the editing cabal. Sorry if you think that too breached WP:AGF but I think I'll find that the record shows this too. Just so I'm clear, was that directed at me? TFOWR 18:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Hauskalainan, did you even read my response? It says right up there: one cannot conclude anything about the existence of such rights during that period, unless a reliable source is identified that draws a conclusion. That was a response to both SaltyBoatr's position and yours. Your conspiracy theories about cabals and such are meaningless and distasteful.

You claim the right to bear arms is a natural and ancient right. I agree with you. But that's an opinion, or at least a logically derived conclusion. Your opinion and mine don't matter here. Your logical arguments don't matter here. Remember, verifiability, not truth is all that matters. Your claims of "the truth" won't trump Wikipedia policy. If you disagree, you are free to start your own encyclopedia with different policies. But here on Wikipedia, you must find a source that says what you claim, or stop arguing about it. In other words, put up or shut up — to both of you. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

If I may defend myself here. I am not actually arguing against what Hauskalainan believes. I am doing nothing more than insisting that if he wants to insert his belief into this article I (we) must be able to verify it against third party reliable sourcing. Considering that the burden of proof is on the editor seeking to insert material, in this case, the burden to "put up or shut up" is on him. My duty here is to verify Hauskalainan sourcing. Pardon me if I am dogged in my insistence on verifiability, but I insist. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 19:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

There are any number of articles in wikipedia that have few citations. Much of that is due to the fact that most of that material is common knowledge and needs few citations. The fact that the right to arms for self defense is a right that pre dated the Bill of Rights is in that same kind of common knowledge. I find some of the things that SB wants citations on to be in the "plain as day" category. I myself was forced to find a citation to the freaking "Divine Right of Kings", which anyone with two brains cells should know about.96.237.120.38 (talk) 21:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

First: We are discussing this article. WP:OTHERSTUFF discussions of flaws in other articles are irrelevant here.

Second: Contentious claims require references, plain and simple. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. If it wasn't contentious, we wouldn't be discussing it. The burden of finding a source is on the person wanting to insert the claim. I quote: "anything challenged or likely to be challenged, ... [must] be attributed to a reliable source." Like it or not, that is the official policy here.

Third: It is also "common knowledge" that unwritten rules exist, that have been enforced now and then through history. Common knowledge can go either way. The assertion that the absence of a law restricting a right automatically means the legal system of the time recognized such a right is a contentious assertion that needs a source. Either find records showing that the right was recognized, or find a reliable source making that claim. Otherwise, the article cannot take a position either way. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I grant there is a common knowledge of a natural right of self-defense, with limitations of duty to retreat, on concealed weapons, etc. that vary over time and vary from place to place. (Because of these variances and more, this is such an important issue to this article that we should be precise when describing it and sourcing is important to that end.) This gets sticky when editors seek to expand the framing of a self-defense right as being protected by the Second Amendment. Some sourcing says it is, and some sourcing says it is not. On that point, there are distinct disagreements between the significant POV's which each must be fairly described here. These POV's also vary over time, and that also must be fairly represented here. For instance, from 1939-2008 the Supreme court held one POV and from 2008 to 2010 the same court (w/ different justices) held another, the article should fairly describe this POV shift over time. The safe way to navigate this thistle patch is to set aside personal opinion, read all available reliable sourcing and write a fair summary based on the balance of that sourcing. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 22:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You're not arguing against what I have written? It sure seems like the contrary to me. If you are willing to accept that it was a long held right to have arms in natural law or common law we now get back to the main issue which ís the nature of the English Bill of Rights and the fundamental connections between English history and the Second Amendment. Lets keep that discussion in the section I created for this purpose. --Hauskalainen (talk) 22:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

If the cabal here wishes me to continue my investigations on past editing activities by y'all I am glad to do so. My eyesight may be failing but at the moment I have read enough into your past activities to build quite a strong case to show that this is what you are all up to. This will involve looking back also at the editing and intervention history of some Administrators and how they achieved their status (i.e. who recommended them and THEIR edit history. If on the other hand you'd rather I went away and left you to it, then you had better stop trying to re-write English history and use WP:Game to do so. TRUTH is just as important as VERIFIABILITY. Verifiability is the route to truth. After all, we are not here to tell fairy stories. Well, some of us are not anyways.--Hauskalainen (talk) 22:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the quote you provided from Malcom above is a good.

However, your "cabal" accusations are boring and tiresome. If pursuing that accusation is your pleasure, please take it off this page and knock yerself out pursuing it somewhere else. Your violation of WP:AGF is off topic on this page, and inappropriate. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You may find it boring and tiresome but a new editor arriving on these pages should be aware of the tactics that are used. You are not exactly an editor who has never edited this page before. Presenting yourself as some neutral third party coming anew to the topic chasing an appeal from another editor here does not quite fit your editing history does it? To be clear, third opinion gives a strong hint that editors who have previously edited the article in dispute should NOT offer a third opinion because it could be construed to be biased. You brought this on yourself. It is because of the editing histories I see that this is a problem and this is exactly the page to make the point so that other editors can be made aware that this may be going on. THey would do well to be on their guard. In fact it deserves to be in section all of its own. You are right though - this issue needs to be discussed elsewhere also. Ultimately. If I decide to take it further that is. It all depends on what happens next.

--Hauskalainen (talk) 22:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I have not previously edited this article in the context of a dispute. I have reverted unexplained anonymous edits without regard to content, and reverted vandalism, probably a handful of times, a couple years ago. My first encounter with this article was to give a third opinion a couple years ago. I believe my editing history will confirm those facts. I haven't monitored this article in well over a year. When it appeared again on WP:3O, I decided to return to offer another opinion, again without editing the article. Given those facts, I daresay whatever problem you perceive doesn't exist.

Regarding your perception of bias: You're imagining it. From the beginning, I have based my opinion on Wikipedia policy. I have even stated that I agree with your point of view, so if I have any "bias" it's in your favor. Wikipedia policy, however, doesn't permit me to render an opinion based on my own personal view, but on what Wikipedia policy says. That's all I did. I find it curious that you find this "biased" just because it goes against our shared view. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, let's WP:AGF and keep on topic. I think the above quote of Malcolm citing Robert Cottrol is a step in the right direction for Hauskalainen who so rarely makes any attempt to identify his sourcing. This cite comes from a debate sponsored by the American Bar Association, and I question whether debate transcripts qualify as reliable sources in Wikipedia. Considering that debaters are trained to debate various points of view, even hypothetical points of view, citations to a debates are not the same thing as citations to scholarly research papers and books which are fact checked. That said, that ABA debate is informative because the various debate participants do a good job of framing each of the significant POV seen about this topic. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 22:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I cited Malcolm. Malcolm was not citing Cottrol. She was giving her own historical view of the matter. --Hauskalainen (talk) 22:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

SB/Hauskalainen - rules on edit war and 3 revert rule

The 3 revert rule is used as a guideline to see if editors are engaged in a edit war, which SB and Hauskalainen obviously were prior to the freeze of the article.

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Edit_war

The three-revert rule ("3RR") states: An editor must not perform more than three reverts (as defined below) on a single page within a 24-hour period.

A "revert" in the context of this rule means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. It can involve as little as one word. A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert.

Per above any change that involved the "deletion" or "replacement" of pre-existing material, of as little as one single word, is an edit that counts as a "revert". 3 changes pr day is all that is allowed. Editor still have considerable leeway to make changes per bold section above. 96.237.120.38 (talk) 14:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you trying to imply that I breached the rule somewhere along the line? I know the rules full well.--Hauskalainen (talk) 16:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I read it as a gentle reminder to both (or all) editors. As this article was listed at WP:RFPP not that long ago, it's probably worth mentioning WP:3RR from time to time. TFOWR 16:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

It is also worth mentioning the core message behind this administrative page lock: "Don't use edits to fight with other editors – disagreements should be resolved through discussion ... editors are strongly encouraged to engage in civil discussion to reach a consensus" Therefore, during this article lock down, we should be discussing things civilly and resolving our disagreement, so that the lock can be lifted. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 16:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Responding to both SB and Hauskalainen: From the volume of edits originating with both of you, I am sure both of you have been in violation of 3rr multiple times over the past couple of weeks. 96.237.120.38 (talk) 22:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources

WP articles must be based on reliable sources and so far only SaltyBoatr has provided any. Whether or not Malcolm's views are the final word, only reliable sources may be used to present alternative views. Some writers have claimed that the right to bear arms was an issue in Bacon's rebellion in Virginia, which was before the Bill of Rights 1689. However, I cannot find any scholarly sources to support this view. Blackstone's work cannot be considered a reliable source for law before the Bill of Rights, but that should not present a problem because we can use modern commentaries on his writing as sources. Also whether or not the right existed at common law, it was an auxiliary not unalienable right. There was no question that the Imperial Parliament had the power to limit or abolish this right. (Incidentally the Bill of Rights 1689 continued in force after the U. S. revolution.) TFD (talk) 00:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Blackstone CANNOT be considered a RELIABLE source? What color are the pills you are on? Blackstone is THE source for law.96.237.120.38 (talk) 03:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You should avoid making personal attacks. Blackstone was a legal scholar and his Commentaries on the Laws of England have influenced legal understanding in the U. S, But his interpretation of history has been questioned and he is seen as defending Whig history. If such a book were published today however it would be considered a tertiary source. Although Blackstone wrote in 1765-1769 that the right to bear arms existed under common law, he provided no examples of case law that establish this. Did he form this conclusion by reading the Bill of Rights 1689 or from reading through cases that predated the bill? Of course following 1689 the issue of whether the right existed under common law was moot. TFD (talk) 03:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Every author cited in the article defending the militia based theory is also interpreting history. From all indications wrongly. Why can they be used and not Blackstone?96.237.120.38 (talk) 12:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Because we do not know what degree of acceptance, if any, his views on this matter are accepted today. (Please see WP:NPOV.) However that should not present a problem for you. If his view is correct, then contemporary sources will confirm it. He also wrote, for example, "To deny the possibility, nay, actual existence, of witchcraft and sorcery, is at once to contradict the revealed Word of God in various passages both of the Old and New Testament." (Wendell's Blackstone's Commentaries, Vol. IV, p. 59. Stephen Abbott Northrop, D.D., A Cloud of Witnesses (Portland, Oregon: American Heritage Ministries, 1987), p. 33) We cannot use that as a reliable source that the Bible is the revealed word of God and that witches exist. Otherwise we would have to radically change most of the articles on science and ancient history. TFD (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Opinion today is not the issue. Opinion when he wrote his material is the issue. Blackstone is a a reliable third party source on the law, easily verified. he is considered THE SOURCE by many. 96.237.120.38 (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Any claim that Blackstone is not WP:RS must be dismissed and the claimant discounted for making it. All of which is not to say the claimant may not present alternate contrary views, so long as they are backed up themselves by WP:RS. -Welhaven (talk) 20:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Joyce Lee Malcolm references in Heller

Between the Restoration and the Glorious Revolution, the Stuart Kings Charles II and James II succeeded in using select militias loyal to them to suppress political dissidents, in part by disarming their opponents. See J. Malcolm, To Keep and Bear Arms 31–53 (1994) (hereinafter Malcolm); L. Schwoerer, The Declaration of Rights, 1689, p. 76 (1981). Under the auspices of the 1671 Game Act, for example, the Catholic James II had ordered general disarmaments of regions home to his Protestant enemies. See Malcolm 103–106. These experiences caused Englishmen to be extremely wary of concentrated military forces run by the state and to be jealous of their arms. They accordingly obtained an assurance from William and Mary, in the Declaration of Right (which was codified as the English Bill of Rights), that Protestants would never be disarmed: “That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.” 1 W. & M., c. 2, §7, in 3 Eng. Stat. at Large 441 (1689). This right has long been understood to be the predecessor to our Second Amendment. See E. Dumbauld, The Bill of Rights and What It Means Today 51 (1957); W. Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States of America 122 (1825) (hereinafter Rawle). It was clearly an individual right, having nothing whatever to do with service in a militia. To be sure, it was an individual right not available to the whole population, given that it was restricted to Protestants, and like all written English rights it was held only against the Crown, not Parliament. See Schwoerer, To Hold and Bear Arms: The English Perspective, in Bogus 207, 218; but see 3 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States §1858 (1833) (hereinafter Story) (contending that the “right to bear arms” is a “limitatio[n] upon the power of parliament” as well). But it was secured to them as individuals, according to “libertarian political principles,” not as members of a fighting force. Schwoerer, Declaration of Rights, at 283; see also id., at 78; G. Jellinek, The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of Citizens 49, and n. 7 (1901) (reprinted 1979).

By the time of the founding, the right to have arms had become fundamental for English subjects. See Malcolm 122–134. Blackstone, whose works, we have said, “constituted the preeminent authority on English law for the founding generation,” Alden v. Maine, 527 U. S. 706, 715 (1999), cited the arms provision of the Bill of Rights as one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen. See 1 Blackstone 136, 139–140 (1765). His description of it cannot possibly be thought to tie it to militia or military service. It was, he said, “the natural right of resistance and self-preservation,” id., at 139, and “the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence,” id., at 140; see also 3 id., at 2–4 (1768). Other contemporary authorities concurred. See G. Sharp, Tracts, Concerning the Ancient and Only True Legal Means of National Defence, by a Free Militia 17–18, 27 (3d ed. 1782); 2 J. de Lolme, The Rise and Progress of the English Constitution 886–887 (1784) (A. Stephens ed. 1838); W. Blizard, Desultory Reflections on Police 59–60 (1785). Thus, the right secured in 1689 as a result of the Stuarts’ abuses was by the time of the founding understood to be an individual right protecting against both public and private violence.

And, of course, what the Stuarts had tried to do to their political enemies, George III had tried to do to the colonists. In the tumultuous decades of the 1760’s and 1770’s, the Crown began to disarm the inhabitants of the most rebellious areas. That provoked polemical reactions by Americans invoking their rights as Englishmen to keep arms. A New York article of April 1769 said that “[i]t is a natural right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defence.” A Journal of the Times: Mar. 17, New York Journal, Supp. 1, Apr. 13, 1769, in Boston Under Military Rule 79 (O. Dickerson ed. 1936); see also, e.g., Shippen, Boston Gazette, Jan. 30, 1769, in 1 The Writings of Samuel Adams 299 (H. Cushing ed. 1968). They understood the right to enable individuals to defend themselves. As the most important early American edition of Blackstone’s Commentaries (by the law professor and former Antifederalist St. George Tucker) made clear in the notes to the description of the arms right, Americans understood the “right of self-preservation” as permitting a citizen to “repe[l] force by force” when “the intervention of society in his behalf, may be too late to prevent an injury.” 1 Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) (hereinafter Tucker’s Blackstone). See also W. Duer, Outlines of the Constitutional Jurisprudence of the United States 31–32 (1833).

There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose. Before turning to limitations upon the individual right, however, we must determine whether the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment comports with our interpretation of the operative clause.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.120.38 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 17 June 2010

That is all very interesting, but it is original research. You need reliable sources that state this. You must also be aware that it must be determined whether this is a consensus, majority, minority or fringe view and be presented properly according to neutrality. TFD (talk) 04:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Original research is something original. This is the US Supreme Court referencing Malcolm, who in turn references Blackstone and others. All the text is copied verbatim from Heller.96.237.120.38 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

Could you explain where in WP:RS it says that court decisions are reliable sources anything other than their decisions? In any case, observations by judges are obiter dictum, and therefore do not orm part of the law and are not binding on other courts. TFD (talk) 12:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you explain where it says that court decisions ARE NOT reliable sources.96.237.120.38 (talk) 14:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Court decisions are primary sources. They should be used for what the decision says, but not what it means. Offering an interpretation of a court decision that's not completely totally obvious (XYZ was found guilty of crime ABC) is OR. If the decision is even slightly controversial, interpretations of it should be based on secondary sources. Ravensfire (talk) 14:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The text above comes directly from the US Supreme Court "opinion" in Heller. It summarizes the accepted views of the right to arms. What is your problem with that? Do you find the US Supreme Court "unreliable"?96.237.120.38 (talk) 14:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, many top experts writing in major law reviews and university journals say that Scalia's opinion attached to that US Supreme Court ruling is "a hollow sham"[5], "patently erroneous"[6], "simply foolish"[7] and "rife with absolutist rhetoric"[8] and "self-absorbed law office history"[9]. Considering the amount reliably sourced criticism we are seeing of this SCOTUS opinion, the policy WP:REDFLAG comes up, and we should be cautious when using it as a definitive source of history in this article. It is one opinion, but not the definitive opinion. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 15:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

and about as many think that Scalia did not go far enough. Now here is the $1,000 question: Why can YOUR use of Malcolm's work be OK, but the use of that work by the Supremes is not?

Is there significant reliably sourced criticism of Malcolm's book? If there was, then WP:REDFLAG would apply there too. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 15:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I am asking you a simple question, If it is OK for YOU to use that book as a reference, why is it NOT OK for the Supremes to do the same?96.237.120.38 (talk) 15:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Please, don't put words in my mouth. As I said, court decisions are primary sources. You can use them to talk about what was said/what was ruled, etc. You cannot interpret them without sourcing to a secondary source unless it's obvious. Summarizing what the SC said and attributing it to them based on that source is probably okay (haven't looked deep enough in this to say one way or the other). Offering an interpretation of that ruling needs a secondary source. Example - "SC said XYZ, which means that PDQ is good but ABC is not" where PDQ and ABC aren't the scenario in the ruling, but similar enough they probably are affected. Ravensfire (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

If you bothered to read the "quoted material" you would have noticed that it already contains a plethora of verifiable third party references in its text. Again: what is your problem?96.237.120.38 (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

What is your problem? Take a look at the question I was trying to help answer. It was asking about court decisions as reliable sources. That's all I answered. Sheesh. Pardon a guy for trying to help out here. Ravensfire (talk) 17:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You QUESTONED using the statements of the US Supreme Court on an interpretation of law. That's like questioning the ability of a Nobel Prize winning chemist to answer a question on Chemistry. Sheesh right back at you!96.237.120.38 (talk) 15:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems like Groundhog day, again. Must we keep on arguing whether third party reliable sources are needed? Or, can individual editors which hold strong personal opinions as to "the truth" insert it into the articles? Fundamentally, this boils down to the question of whether we are going to follow the WP:V policy. Show us the sourcing. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 14:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Like "the truth" you keep pushing that the right to arms is militia based.96.237.120.38 (talk) 14:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

To correct what seems to be obviously boneheaded thinking by a number of posters, let me repeat that the title of this section is "Joyce Lee Malcolm references in Heller" and all text quoted is verbatim from the Heller opinion.96.237.120.38 (talk) 15:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I am not pushing "the truth". I am simply asking that we give fair and proportionate treatment to all significant points of view which we see published in reliable sources. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 15:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You do understand that the above can be taken to mean that you are pushing "a lie". And I am not particularly amused by the fact that every source you don't like is "unreliable".96.237.120.38 (talk) 15:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

If we disagree about what is or is not considered a reliable source, then let's take our disagreement to the reliable source noticeboard. I welcome outside opinion. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 15:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Considering all the cites already in the article to US Supreme Court language, I don't see a need to further waste my time.96.237.120.38 (talk) 15:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Lund seems to be suffering some sort of schizophrenia

Looking at SB's references above, I find one to be Merkel, who from all appearances is at best a second rate historian, and another to be by Lund, who seems to be of two minds. Lund states that the interpretations of Miller and Heller are irreconcilable, i.e so different that they cannot be reconciled, and then states that SCOTUS adopted the Miller opinion.

The interpretations of the Second Amendment in the two cases are irreconcilable. There was no legal need for the Heller Court to adopt Miller’s interpretation of the Second Amendment,96.237.120.38 (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The Levinson "simply foolish" by was directed at Justice Stevens, and not Scalia

Justice Stevens, for example, writes that anyone who reads the text of the Second Amendment and its history, plus a murky 1939 decision of the Court, will find “a clear answer” to the question of whether the Second Amendment supports a “right to possess and use guns for nonmilitary purposes.” This is simply foolish.96.237.120.38 (talk) 15:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Tushnets "absolutist rhetoric" comment is about Scalia's failure to follow his own method of interpretation,thereby compromising the opinion.

Justice Scalia’s majority opinion is rife with an absolutist rhetoric about the methods of constitutional interpretation, but the compromises embedded in the opinion are inconsistent with that rhetoric.96.237.120.38 (talk) 15:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

English Section - Prelude to taking this dispute to dispute resolution. Sub-points of issue

(I brought this section and sub section back from the archive - the issues here are NOT resolved--Hauskalainen (talk) 23:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC))

I don't agree with the suggestion in the previous section about arguing the situation from an earlier frozen position. This is because the very structure of the section was trying to push a POV and that is what is so unacceptable. I'd rather that we discussed the issues that I have raised previously, and then see what are the things that we can agree on and what are the things we disagree about. This is with a view to taking these things to some form of arbitration, probably in connection with WP:POV.

My problem was the structure of the article which basically said the following:-

1. That there has been a progression in the development of the right to bear arms
2. That it began in England where (simplicity) there was originally no right to bear arms and then
3. There came an obligation on SOME to bear arms for a limited purpose
4. That after a battle with the king there was wrenched a right for protestants to bear arms and
5. finally that the right of everyone to bear arms came first to America in the writing of the constitution.

Now let us look at the various elements and let us see where we agree and disagree.--Hauskalainen (talk) 16:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Progression of the law

Clearly there has been a series of laws regarding arms. And clearly Malcolm contends that this means that this was an ever developing progression from no rights towards full rights. This contentious position is how the English history section is written. But this is just Professor Malcolm's OPINION. It is certainly challengeable. As is the claim that the English Bill of Rights was a major breakthrough in the "granting" of rights. These two disputed issues (that the English originally had no rights and that English Bill or Rights resulted in the granting of rights to protestants only) are the subject of objections detailed further below. I am going to suggest that anyone who wants contest anything concerning those specific issues raises them in the appropriate section below. Otherwise it will get confusing having these issues handled in different places. Comments in this section (Progression of the law) should be confined only to the matter of referring to individual laws (such as the law relating to obligations on certain persons to carry arms) and using them (or misusing them, depending on your POV) to "tell a story" of a "developing right". --Hauskalainen (talk) 16:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

If there is a dispute about whether the Malcolm book is a reliable source, the place to discuss that is the reliable source noticeboard. I see no sourcing at all for Hauskalainen stated opinion (even if it is was true), it would violate policy to use it here per WP:NOR. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 20:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

This is not a question of whether or not Malcolm is a serious academic (I have little doubt that she is), or whether her book in general is a reliable source. I suspect you know this already. The issue is whether the basis for the particular telling of history (on the dust cover and brief way into the text) that Americans right to have arms developed out of England from a situation where there was originally no right, to an obligation for some and then into a right for most and ultimately into a right for all is a true summary of what she believes or knows to be true. It seems to me to be more like the work of a marketing executive given the job of producing the front cover and an editor trying to make the preface reflect the story on the dust jacket. I have a feeling that I have already read in Malcolm's works much of which seems to go against this "summary" story. Beyond this I will go no further at present because there are two big implications of this "evolving right" (that there were no rights in England at one time, and that the Bill of Rights granted a new right) which are contestable. These are better discussed in the appropriate sections below. --Hauskalainen (talk) 23:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

This issue is not one of WP:RS but rather one of WP:NPOV. At the point where the claim is made, there are no primary sources given (which makes me suspect that these are not her writings). So at worst we can only describe this as her point of view. I would urge you to use the sections below to point us to examples in her texts which are her justification in the implications in the text that Englishman at the turn of the millennium and at all times before then had zero right to have arms and the implied assertion that the Bill of Rights "granted" new rights or that it only was "granted" only to protestants. If you cannot do so we must take this claim of progression as a being POV. If that is the case then at the very least we have to present alternative POVs and at best we should not structure this section of the article to tell an evolving story of new expansion to rights if that interpretation is open to question.--Hauskalainen (talk) 23:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the edits and the sources is really very serious. What we have here is an editor who wants to defend the use of ONE SOURCE (Malcolm), saying one small thing in her book, and using that to construct a wholly revised view of English History! It has never been in doubt that Englishmen hava always had the right to use arms to defend themselves and protect their family and use spears bows and arrows to catch food to feed himself and his family. These are ancient rights.

But now, one Wikipedian who is defending the use of a small quote from an American historian who intended to rewrtite the entire history of English rights up to 1100 and the 500 years or so beyond that. Salty must go and get better references if he wants to change the story of English history. How did the English do Battle with the Vikings at the Battle of Maldon in 991 or Boudica defeat the Romans 900 years earlier if they were not armed? The whole idea that the English had no right to arms at the start of the second millenium is SUPPOSITION based on ZERO evidence. Or if they had the right then and then lost it, when did this happen? This is why the claim is so egregious.

It should not be for me to defend the common view of history, but for SaltyBoatr to defend his outrageuous revisionist view. What other serious historians hold this view? If he wants to claim that the English had zero rights at the turn of the first milennium then he had better do so with with something more substantial than a throw away line in a book about the Second Amendment.--Hauskalainen (talk) 15:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

In England there was originally no right to bear arms

This is an implied argument both in the telling of history in the section and is seemingly that asserted by Malcolm in the early part of her book and on the dust cover. What is the evidence for this assertion? In fact, it's just her OPINION. It is not based on any primary sources (as far as I can tell). --Hauskalainen (talk) 16:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

If there is a dispute about whether the Malcolm book is a reliable source, the place to discuss that is the reliable source noticeboard. That book is published by Harvard University Press, and as a general rule of thumb books published by major university publication houses are considered reliable sources here. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 20:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

We do know that for centuries, Man has carried arms both for hunting and for defending his kith and kin. We know that many legal historians claim that this is a "natural right", born of the right of every man to live peaceably in his environment and to be able to feed himself and his family. We know also that English law has many sources and that legislation and decrees are just one of them.--Hauskalainen (talk) 16:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Need to verify this assertion in reliable sources. Please provide your sourcing. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 20:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

My genetic memory states convincingly that, when facing a lion, tiger, pack of wolves, and assorted other meanies, it is better to be armed and alive, so that one can ENJOY supper, then to be unarmed and BE supper. If you doubt my genetic memory, we can try to test yours for confirmation. Is there a zoo near you with a zoo keeper that will look the other way, so that we can toss you into the lions den? If you scream in mindless panic, I think your genetic memory will provide the needed confirmation. :-)96.237.120.38 (talk) 23:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this needs verification but are you seriously suggesting that Englishmen did not have longbows, simple bows and arrows, or spears before the twelfth century? Or that if they did they were doing so illegally. Or that many laws are not written down but made by judges based on what is deemed to be fair? It seems to me that you are engaging in gaming the system again. Please desist! I am not providing text for the article but just trying to reason with you. --Hauskalainen (talk) 23:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

For years Kings and Justices have interpreted the law based on what is fair and which will have the support of the people. Joyce Malcolm in her "progression" myth cites only the law as she has seen it develop by decree and by parliament and is ignoring that other source of law, the common law. Law made by Justices and Kings based on what is fair. If the implied assertion is that the English had no such right, when did they lose it? What decree took away the right to have arms generally for hunting or self defense? I think we need to be told.--Hauskalainen (talk) 16:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Regardless whether Malcolm is correct or not, that book is a reliable source. The Hauskalainen assertion is unsourced and even if he is correct, it violates WP:NOR. Also, if there are differing significant opinions, they all must be included. You can't just delete significant opinion because you dislike it. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 20:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It is a crucial matter of whether Malcolm is correct or not. Either the English had the right to use arms at the turn of the first millennium or they did not. It is wrong for you to say "she is a reliable source so she cannot be questioned". My view is that she does not ANYWHERE make this claim other than implicitly in the recounting of the progression of laws. It is not made explicitly and as far as I can tell it is not backed anywhere by a primary source. At best it is Malcolm's opinion. At worst it is misrepresentation of her views by her publisher. We need to cite it as opinion and not fact if is not backed up by a primary source. We can see from both Blackstone's commentaries and the full wording of the Bill of Rights that parliament certainly felt there had been a long established right to arms before the passing of the Bill of Rights. We certainly should not structure the article as if it were fact.--Hauskalainen (talk) 00:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

There came an obligation on SOME to bear arms for a limited purpose

That such an obligation was imposed (and which presumably had previously been just a moral obligation) is not in doubt. What is important here is not that such laws were passed (which is not in dispute) but their meaning in the context of an alleged "developing right" (which IS disputed). In this regard, Professor Malcolm is not a secondary source but a primary one. It is her opinion. We know for a fact that Joyce Lee Malcolm is a supporter of the value of the gun laws stemming from the right in the US Constitution. She has even written in an British newspaper about how proud she is of this. Her opinion is, however, no more valid than anybody else's. I am going to suggest that nobody adds any comments to this section because, for the record, I am not doubting that there ever was any such obligation written in law. If you wish to discuss the issue of the validity of the use of this as contextual to a "developing right" I would suggest that this is made in the sub-section titled "Progression of the law" because, as far as I can see there is no other reason for referring to this otherwise non-contentious fact of law. --Hauskalainen (talk) 16:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

After a battle with the King, the English wrenched a right for protestants to bear arms

This is a very easy mistake for an ordinary person to make just reading one line from the Bill of Rights. It is important to read the law in full to understand its meaning (something which I added and has not been taken out of the article). It is not a mistake that a professional historian should ever make (even an opinionated one like Joyce Lee Malcolm). It is a challengable assertion on several grounds. It implies that there was no right for Catholics or Protestants to have arms before its passage into law. This is not the case because the very "law" itself asserts that both Catholics and Protestants has been carrying arms before its passage and historians do no doubt this. It challengeable also because it seems to claim that the law says that only Protestants ended up with a right to carry arms. But clearly, non-protestants have had arms legally after the passage of this law. In fact, the English Bill of Rights neither created a new right to arms or took away an old one. I have already given you a reference that says that in practice the English Bill of Rights did not really change very much at all. It was an affirmation of existing rights and an undoing of the wrongs (performed illegally as the drafters would have it) by the previous king. It is totally a distortion of fact to claim that this was the granting of a new right to have arms for defense. --Hauskalainen (talk) 16:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It is wrong also to imply that the battle with the King was over the right to have arms. The English Civil War was primarly about the the powers of the King to raise taxes to finance a standing army in support of the monarchy without the consent of Parliament. It was not about the personal right to have arms as the article once implied. It did lead to the temporary disarming of Catholics holding arms caches (for fear of them being used for an armed struggle involving foreign powers to overturn the State religion in favour of re-establishing catholicism). It culminated in the unprecendented beheading of a King, and briefly to Republicanism. But not over arms. The civil war and the Glorious revolution that led to the establishment of the Orange William and Mary as co-monarchs was certainly the background to the English Bill of Rights. But it is totally wrong to imply that the Bill of Rights created a new right and a denial of rights to others. This is a mistelling of history and a grievous wrong which we, as Wikipedians, ought to resist. It may be ONE VIEW or one claim but it has to be told in the context of other views and background material which totally contradicts the claim. I am greatly annoyed by the removal of this contextal material which shows this position to be false.--Hauskalainen (talk) 16:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Now that Salty seems prepared to agree with me that the English DID have a natural law right to have arms to defend themselves (and if we use the Malcolm quote I just gave as evidence that she herself does not believe that the English had zero rights to arms in the twelfth century), then his next job ought to be to find a respectable source that believes that the English Bill of Rights granted (a) a new right (in which case the source must tell us where the old right went) and (b) that it granted this "new" right ONLY TO PROTESTANTS. My understanding from history and from reading around this subject for many weeks (both English writes and American ones) is that the English Bill of Rights did not create a new right but just re-stated that old common or natural law right. If you want the article to say (a) and (b), then what are your sources? It is not a small matter.

And thence to the meaning. If the American drafters of the Second Amendment simply restated their pre-existing rights (in the same way as the English did - which is as I understand the Supreme Court's majority view) did putting this text into the constitution actually change anything? And how does the difference in the wording (references to "militias" which appears only in the American wording and to "suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law" in the English version affect their interpretation and impact. These are obvious differences but what is the impact of them?

--Hauskalainen (talk) 22:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Hauskalainen, can you please provide the name of the pre-1689 case that established that there was a right at common law to keep and bear arms. TFD (talk) 23:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

".. the pre-1689 case"? You seem to be referring to case law when in fact that part of common law refering to this right in common law emenates from the enforcement natural rights. Though the common law often refers to previous judgements there is no need to do so when it comes to common law defending common natural rights. That the law has regarded this as a natural right is seen in Blackstone for example but it is also evident from the wording of the English Bill of Rights and the interpretation of it in the courts, especially it seems in the American Courts.--Hauskalainen (talk) 09:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

This entire discussion has been about whether or not the right to keep and bear arms existed under common law. Now you seem to accept that it did not but claim that it is a natural right. But common law rights are legal rights, and unless it can be shown that there was a legal right to keep and bear arms which could only be limited by legislation, then no common law right existed. TFD (talk) 20:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

"But common law rights are legal rights" . . . . agreed

unless it can be shown that there was a legal right to keep and bear arm s which could only be limited by legislation, then no common law right existed. . . . not agreed.

I can claim with some certainty that I have a right to keep milk in my refrigerator. Just because I cannot show that I have that legal right does not mean that it does not exist. The law works the other way round, by generally restricting peoples rights for some wider good. If you want to claim that there was NO right to keep and bear arms (or no right for me to keep milk in the fridge) then you would have to show how and when that right was withdrawn. Nobody has seriously claimed that the English in the twelfth century had no rights to arms because they would have to demonstrate that this was the case by showing how and when that right was lost.--Hauskalainen (talk) 19:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Again, provide your sourcing. Also, we must represent all significant points of view and a major (and famous) point of view is that 'bear arms' implies military uses "one does not bear arms against a rabbit". At the least, we must write the section to reflect that there is differing opinion whether "having arms" (for hunting or self defense) is or is not synonymous with 'bearing arms'. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 20:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I know you have a bee in your bonnet about the difference between bearing arms (warfare) and merely owning arms. Franky I am not interested. I am not submitting text for the article so your "provide sourcing" quip á la WP:Game is way out of order. What we are talking about is the allegation that the right of everyone to bear arms came first to America in the text of the constitution (as amended by the Second Amendment). All I am saying is that the story is false because the English did have a common right to have arms for their defense; it was a qualified one (as is the American's right still today) and they had this right anyway before the passing of the Second Amendment into law. The Second Amendment did not change very much other than to make this aspect of law difficult to change in the future.--Hauskalainen (talk) 00:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Does he have to provide reliable sourcing that caveman used spears too? or was that militia based as well? 96.237.120.38 (talk) 23:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I know you have a bee in your bonnet about the difference between bearing arms (warfare) and merely owning arms. No. Rather, I notice that the reliable sourcing disagrees whether "bear arms" means military service, or owning guns (or both!). Per policy around here we must neutrally describe all significant point of views seen in reliable sourcing. We are not allowed to just pay attention to the the point of view we personally like. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 15:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Again: The US Supreme Court has stated that to "bear arms" simply means to "carry arms" and anyone who thinks different is a wackjob living beyond the "looking glass". This quote, already in the article, was pointed out a few days ago.

A purposive qualifying phrase that contradicts the word or phrase it modifies is unknown this side of the looking glass (except, apparently, in some courses on Linguistics). If "bear arms" means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage ("for the purpose of self-defense" or "to make war against the King"). But if "bear arms" means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add "for the purpose of killing game." The right "to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game" is worthy of the mad hatter.[165]96.237.120.38 (talk) 16:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Does the opinion of the Supreme Court cancel the policy here to include all significant points of view seen in reliable sourcing? SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 16:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It cancels YOUR policy to push the meaning of "to bear arms" as meaning only to bear arms in warfare. In the words of the US Supreme Court, anyone who thinks that to "bear arms" means anything but to "carry arms" lives beyond the looking glass, i.e. is crazy, or colloquially "is a whack job".96.237.120.38 (talk) 16:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

For the record I am not asking for "meaning only to bear arms in warfare". I am asking that we recognize both meanings that we see in reliable sourcing. Where you and I seem to disagree is that you want to exclude the meaning which you dislike. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 17:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

You didn't sound like you were pushing anything except your own agenda a few comments up. To quote you "I know you have a bee in your bonnet about the difference between bearing arms (warfare) and merely owning arms.". And in case you missed it, a person has the right use arms to defend himself, his family, total strangers, his state and the U.S. of A. The last two involve engaging in warfare.96.237.120.38 (talk) 18:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

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

(typical comment for each of the above sections)

Comment At the core, this is a problem because Hauskalainen is describing what he sees as being "truth" in his well considered opinion. Whether or not his opinion is correct, (and I grant he might be correct), we still deserve a chance to confirm he is correct by reading verification of his ideas in third party reliable sourcing. For a very long time now, Hauskalainen has not pointed to third party reliable sourcing that verifies his opinion of what is true. Until that happens, this has the appearance of prohibited original research. Here is a pointer back to a stable version of this article section that was reasonably well sourced[10]. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 17:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

No the core issue is that "story" being "spun" in the article is deliberately misleading and is not based on solid irrefutable evidence. As such it is not reflective of alternative points of view. When I tried to add these they were swiftly deleted. When I expanded the Bill of Rights to show it was not a grant of new right but a re-assertion of ancient rights not just for Protestants (a myth) but for everyone, my edits were deleted leaving the article back telling these silly POV myths. I am sure that if I expanded on the Blackstone Commentaries to show that keeping arms for defense was an ancient and personal right long before the passage of the Bill of Rights, that would have been deleted too. The reason being that it too would not fit the myth that Salty wishes us to hear - the "developing rights" myth. Wikipedia should not be used to tell these myths.--Hauskalainen (talk) 00:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

1) Who, beyond Hauskalainen, says this is a myth? 2) Which policy in Wikipedia says that so-called "myth" which is published by a well known scholar in a book[11] by a book published highly respected university publishing house "should not be used"? SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 14:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It is a myth that people got the right to self defense "granted" to them. Every person has the right to defend himself and it is self evident that in order to "adequately" defend yourself you need weapons in the same class as those to be used against you.96.237.120.38 (talk) 01:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hauskalainen and IP, could you please provide the name of the legal case before 1689 that confirmed the right of keeping arms. TFD (talk) 04:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The question was whether or not the right to self defense is a myth. Why don't you provide a case showing that it doesn't exist.96.237.120.38 (talk) 10:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

So it seems it's your turn in this apparent game of WP:TAGTEAM to start WP:GAME. (Sorry if that seems WP:UNCIVIL but this is how it seems). Okay. You refer to "legal case" as though one legal case established the right. The right to life and the liberty to live it is as fully as one can is a right so self evident that it s considered to be a natural right which judges have defended since time immemorial. This is why both Blackstone and Malcolm and the drafters of the English Bill of Rights refer to it as an ancient right. It is why the American Supreme Court in Heller regarded it as such without the need to refer to case law. Because it is part of natural law it is ergo a part of the common law. Though the common law often refers to previous judgements there is no need to do so when it comes to common law defending common natural rights.--Hauskalainen (talk) 08:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Look if I claimed that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution confirmed an existing right and was challenged I could point to Semayne's case (1604) as proof. If the right to bear arms existed before 1689 then you should be able to find a case too. If the right to bear arms existed then we would expect to see a judgment from the Restoration period (1660-1688), the period when the government took people's guns away from them, where someone sued the government to get their guns back. Could you please provide the name of one. By the way, please do not accuse other editors of bad faith. All I am asking of you is to provide sources. TFD (talk) 09:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

History states that Ugh the Caveman had a right to his spears and clubs. Sad to say there is no written record of what happened when someone tried to take Ugh's spears and clubs, But I am certain that it involved clubbing and spearing.96.237.120.38 (talk) 11:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

You write as if there was a clear and well established separation between King and the Courts. There was not (and neither for that matter was there a clear distinction between the Church and the State). In spite of Magna Carta there were many attempts by the King to put himself above the law of the land and occassionally the King succeeded. There was a famous case about this around the time. The case in Godden I think. There would not have been much certainty that any case of the kind you are asking me to cite would have succeeded. --Hauskalainen (talk) 11:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

No source claims that there was ever any right to keep and bear arms outside common law countries. TFD (talk) 19:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

If you ever told a Viking that he had no right to his axe, he'd chop you up into little bits with it. If you told a Mongol he had no right to his bow, he'd shoot you full of arrows. If you tried to take the sword from a Roman citizen soldier, I would NOT want to be you. The Romans were an inventive lot when it came to punishment. 96.237.120.38 (talk) 11:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

If a case against the King involving the right to bear arms would have been unsuccessful in common law courts then no such right existed at common law. TFD (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

How do you reconcile your views, with the fact that at least one English King was sent packing (James II),partially for disarming people.96.237.120.38 (talk) 11:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Blackstone's Commentaries are a SECONDARY SOURCE

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

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Secondary_source

Law

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

That is the equivalent of claiming that the federalist papers are a secondary source for interpreting the U. S. Bill of Rights. Instead of relying on modern academic research we would have an argument between Birchers and other extremists about how they interpreted it. TFD (talk) 01:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The Federalist Papers are in fact a secondary source for interpreting the Bill of Rights, but the ANTI-Federalist papers are an even better source. Both have been used by the US Supreme Court and other courts for that very purpose. BTW: What do the Birchers say about the Second Amendment? Perhaps, that it protects a pre-existing individual right? Sounds like exactly what the US Supreme Court said. Imagine that!96.237.120.38 (talk) 02:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote above: "According to S. C. v. Dawson (1968),[12] "going armed with unusual and dangerous weapons to the terror of the people" is a misdemeanor at common-law. This offense was later incorporated in the statute of Northhampton of 2 Edw. III, ch. 3. (Riding or Going Armed Act 1328 c. 3). (See: List of Acts of the Parliament of England to 1601). Both of these laws continue in U. S. unless repealed or superceded." Under common law, bearing arms is an offence not a right and this was confirmed by the Statute of Northampton. TFD (talk) 02:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Please read what I referenced above: Specifically, in Rex v. Knight[20] the accused had been charged with violating the Statute of Northampton by "walk[ing] about the streets armed with guns, and go[ing] into the church of St. Michael, in Bristol, in the time of divine service, with a gun, to terrify the King's subjects."[21] Under the judge's instructions, that an essential element of the crime of violating the Statute of Northampton (p.795)was "go[ing] armed to terrify the King's subjects,"[22] the jury acquitted the accused.[23] The court further noted that the Statute of Northampton was "but an affirmance" of the common law.!96.237.120.38 (talk) 02:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

What the court meant by "the Statute of Northampton was "but an affirmance" of the common law" was that it was an offense under the common law to carry weapons, and this law against carrying arms was codified under the Statute of Northampton. That should be clear enough and please stop presenting obscure objections. TFD (talk) 03:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely NOT. If it was an offense to simply carry weapons the accused would have been found guilty and fined or imprisoned (whatever the punishement was). He was instead ACQUITTED. The court therefore stated that it was OK for him to go around armed. Under "common law" it was perfectly legal to carry weapons, even unusual weapons, as long as it was not for "the terror of the people" .96.237.120.38 (talk) 12:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Just relying on the excerpts posted above, I don't think TFD's extrapolation is really all that correct, nor, regardless of my opinion, is any of that supported by third party reliable sources. Let's not debate this here like that, but talk about sources we find and evaluate those. Shadowjams (talk) 06:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Blackstone was perhaps at one point a source of law, but yeah, this is ridiculous. No, he's hardly a primary source here, and he's certainly a valid, and reliable, secondary source. I imagine 10 minutes on lexis will find you dozens of articles about pre-English Bill of Rights common law self-defense and right to bear arms articles. I don't have anything to back this up, but I wonder if the "bear arms" and "keep arms" language was as specific in the 17th century as it was at the time of the constitution, or even later, at the time of the 14th amendment. But 96... it's worth doing a little bit of that research instead of just making those arguments. This isn't the place to have the debate, let's use this to bring forth some sources and make the article better. Shadowjams (talk) 05:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Hauskalainen, Shadowjames, are you aware that since Blackstone wrote his Commentaries a quarter of a millenium ago that other writers have written about the law? Are you aware that after 250 years that there have been legal precedents that have altered the common law? If either of you become "attorneys" may I suggest that you familiarize yourself with judgments made within the last 250 years because more recent precedents may have changed the law. BTW, Soloman v. Soloman, Carlyle vs. Carbolic Smoke Bomb, Roe V. Wade, and many other important cases have been decided within the last 250 years. Do you know what the terms common law and case law mean? TFD (talk) 06:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't be rude. I've discussed with you before, and I thought we had a mutual respect. Is your point that Blackstone's irrelevant on the pre 1689 sources because he wrote after that? That's a valid argument, I was just suggesting his commentaries are hardly primary sources. In fact, that he wrote after the fact only supports that. I don't sense a substantive disagreement on this point. Shadowjams (talk) 06:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Shadowjams:You wrote Is your point that Blackstone's irrelevant on the pre 1689 sources because he wrote after that? That's a valid argument How can someone write about something BEFORE it happens?96.237.120.38 (talk) 12:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I think Carbolic Smoke is still good law :) Shadowjams (talk) 06:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

My point is that if we discuss Blackstone's views, we should use modern scholars. What is the problem? if no modern scholars share our view of Blackstone then our view is wrong. If our view of Blackstone is correct, then some scholars will support it. That is the same with any subject. We use the latest literature, not something that is 200 years old. TFD (talk) 06:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Aside from the point that Carbolic Smoke Ball is still good law, I agree with you, and that's a valid point. Those ideas need to be backed up with modern commentary (certainly modern meaning post 1780s), but let's also not excise Blackstone from the article either. Shadowjams (talk) 06:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Fortunately, there is plenty of modern scholarly analysis of those 250 year old Blackstone writings. (Even reading modern legal treatises can be a challenge, but when written in antiquated English, it can be tricky.) The problem here in the past with the use of Blackstone was that editors here were tending to make selective quotes editorializing, being interpretive, to advance their personal POVs. If we stick closer to what the third party secondary sourcing says about Blackstone and its meaning to the 2A we should be able to figure this out and keep WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 13:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Selective Blindness

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

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

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

That article is about a law proposed by Congress, not about what Heller says about the Constitutionality of gun control. What I wrote about the regulation of pistols being Constitutional is relative to the Heller ruling, not laws that Congress might enact. The situation was that the Heller allowed the regulation of high capacity handguns like automatic loading pistols. The District sought to regulate these pistols, and when some members of the US Congress learned this they sought to pass a law overriding the District Council, and the District reacted to the political threat from Congress by loosening their gun control more than Heller would have required per the Constitutional requirement. That article is a bit vague about the exact specifics of the current DC gun law. Do you know of a good source that describes the exact condition of the DC gun law now? I would like to learn more that I can glean from that newspaper article. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 13:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

SB- You wrote Even pistols remain to be illegal everywhere in DC including inside the home. You still must keep your handgun inoperable and locked or disassembled within your home at all times The Washington Post states otherwise on both counts.96.237.120.38 (talk) 14:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for imprecise and incorrect wording. I concede your point. Sorry. You are right. I hope you feel better now. You won. And, you seem more concerned with battling me personally than improving this article.

That said: The topic should not drift away from the Second Amendment. My point, which I wrote incorrectly, remains true. In this post-Heller era per the Supreme Court nearly every conceivable gun control regulation is constitutional, including banning of semi-automatic pistols. This new found constitutionality hinges on the words "permissible" (see Heller page 63) and the words "presumptively lawful regulatory measures" (see Heller page 56). Since the Heller ruling, scores of court cases challenging gun control laws have been heard in the last two years and not one has been overturned on Second Amendment grounds. Typically these courts have pointed to page 56 "presumptively lawful regulatory measures" when ruling against the plaintiff who typically was arguing for "individual rights". See this UCLA Law Review article[13] examining the gun control court rulings in the post-Heller period for confirmation of this fact. This article seems to give a undue emphasis on the words "individual rights" from the Heller ruling, and based on the events of the last two years[14], the operative words from Heller have been "presumptively lawful regulatory measures". We should correct this POV balance issue in the article. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 15:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I am interested in squashing what seems a never ending distortion of facts on your part.96.237.120.38 (talk) 18:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Me to. I do not want to get my facts wrong. Please help me get my fact right. The best way to do this is to tell me what reliable sources I should be reading. Did you get a chance to read that UCLA Law Review article[15] which examines the court rulings that have been issued post-Heller? It is an interesting read because it describes the evolution of the court interpretation (and political interpretation) of the Second Amendment during these last two years. This encyclopedia article could be improved by giving coverage to this modern evolution in the legal interpretation of the 2A. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 19:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read one of those cases where the Supreme Court states that "the plain meaning of the law IS the law".96.237.120.38 (talk) 13:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I sounds like you may have read that UCLA Law Review article, because it has a similar criticism. The author questions the Supreme Court's "plain meaning of the law" relative to the fact that the Heller ruling protects only self protection within the home, and excludes the security of self protection in public. (see page 1569) "The amendment says 'security of a free state' not 'security of a free home'." Scalia's viewpoint of the 2A as written Heller is the "plain meaning": security of a free home . Selective blindness, indeed. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 14:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Will wonders never cease. We agree that Heller did not go far enough.96.237.120.38 (talk) 19:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

Gradually working our way through the steps of dispute resolution.

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

• Speaking for myself, see above for evidence, yes I have been focusing on content, keeping as cool as possible and patiently discussing. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 16:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

2 Resolving disputes 2.1 Sensitive and privacy-related issues

• Avoiding the 'outing' the AnonIP. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 16:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

2.2 Editor assistance

• Requested editor assistance here [16] Reply was to set up a WP:3O and/or an RFC. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 16:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

2.3 Ask for a third opinion

• Opened WP:3O here[17], and the answer is here[18] in a nutshell we should be concerned with "What do the sources say, not what the truth actually is." SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 16:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

2.4 Ask about the subject

• Made a posting[19] on the Wikilaw discussion page requesting input here. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 16:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

2.5 Ask about a policy

2.6 Ask for help at a relevant noticeboard

• Requested input from the WP:NOR noticeboard[20]. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 16:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
• Request posed to the WP:RS noticeboard here[21].SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 12:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• At at the same noticeboard again for the main point of contention about disregard of the standard view of history--Hauskalainen (talk) 17:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

2.7 For incivility

• Administrative actions against the AnonIP for WP:NPA and WP:DE, see [22][23][24][25][26][27][28]. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 16:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
• Admin incident noticeboard re: AnonIP[29] SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 19:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

2.8 Request a comment

• Initiated an RfC[30] seeking outside comments. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 14:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

2.9 Informal mediation

• It seems like it might be time to proceed with this step of requesting informal mediation. What do others think? SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 19:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
• Informal mediation initiated here[31]. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 20:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
• Hauskalainen refusal to participate in mediation here[32]. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 16:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I was being asked to mediate by you but the mediator who came forward seems to have just 2 days experience of editing Wikipedia! I was not born yesterday! It seemed like a put up a job. Besides, we had not exhausted other forms of mediation.--Hauskalainen (talk) 17:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

2.10 Formal mediation

• Information mediation was refused[33]. It seems the next step is to try formal mediation. What do other editors think? Are the parties to the dispute willing to participate in format mediation? SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 16:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• • The mediator's offer was rejected because the mediator had no editing history. Who was this guy? Your alter-ego? Also I did not think that we had exausted all means to resolve the dispute. I had not raised my main complaint (that you were structuting the article to tell one version of history when in fact this is a recent revisionist view which has not had wide acceptance by the academic community and the other, more traditional view should have much greater weight than this revisionist one and which the article (because of the way it has been edited in the past and which I am now trying to correct) had completed expunged this more traditional view of history completely. Hauskalainen (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

2.11 Conduct a survey

3 If the situation is urgent

4 Last resort: Arbitration

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

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

A Developing right?

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

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

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

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

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

There is no doubt that the right protected by the Second Amendment is a "legal right". And gaming the system means using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith. So I do not understand what you mean. TFD (talk) 04:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I have not analyzed the above zillion words well enough to make the strong statement that it happening here. But I was thinking about it more with regards to the discussion of rights pre-dating the constitution. There are some statements that an objective person would accept as true that are not wp:ver sourcable, e.g. "Barack Obama has never climbed the mountain K2". The majority of statements in Wikipedia are not directly sourced per wp:ver. If a person would want to knock out or keep out one of these statements ostensibly strictly on sourcing grounds, in reality they have another motive, and I would call such an action "gaming the system". North8000 (talk) 12:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

To North8000: A "protected right" in the US constitution is an enumerated, explicit prohibition against the government prohibiting. A "right" includes the primary rights of life, liberty, and property, and includes all lesser rights needed to keep those 3 rights intact. It is impossible to enumerate all these "lesser" rights and the 9th Amendment to the Bill of Rights covers protects them as follows The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.120.38 (talk) 12:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that I fully agree with you, except to note that it common practice to use the word "right" to refer to both of those, and so, in practice, those are 2 of the definitions of that word. North8000 (talk) 12:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I really doubt that we will ever agree to anything when we continue this discussion of "I believe this". Can we bring this talk page to discussions of what we read in reliable secondary sourcing giving coverage of the English history as it relates to the Second Amendment. Then, can we discuss what we are reading? Let's stop discussing what I believe, it the goal is improving the article, it isn't working! SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 15:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

North8000, this discussion thread is about "English History". Obviously that means reading what modern scholars say about the right to keep and bear arms as it existed in England. These scholars have written about common law, statute and the opinions of legal scholars, including Edward Coke and William Blackstone, whose works were and still are used to interpret the law. Whether or not the Second Amendment protects a legal right does not affect the section about English history. TFD (talk) 17:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

You are right. I just used the 2nd as example to make my point about the many definitions of the word thus it's ambiguity. North8000 (talk) 17:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

You should read the article on natural and legal rights. TFD (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll do that. North8000 (talk) 19:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Isn't it equally incumbent upon you to prove that such a liberty did exist? The evidence either way is nebulous. Need we address this issue in the article?

No sources claim that the right to bear arms is a natural right. Also, could you please stick to reliable sources. Since articles can only be based on reliable sources, this lengthy discussion is pointless. TFD (talk) 12:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The right to defend yourself is a natural right, and the right to arms is a right derived from that natural right. You cannot defend yourself unless you have in your possession weapons equal in power to those available to criminals. In this day and age that means guns. Depending on how far back you go, the weapons could be bows, spears, swords, and for Ugh the Caveman, clubs. The word criminals includes criminals in government who would use their power over the police and military, to in effect enslave you.96.237.120.38 (talk) 17:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

A definition problem again. One of the many working definitions of "right" is that which is not legally prohibited. In the beginning, this was everything. Under this definition, one would have to establish that the right was taken show in order to claim it did not exist. North8000 (talk) 13:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Please provide a source that that definition was ever used in law. TFD (talk) 14:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I am with TFD on this. I cannot follow the premise shown above by Hauskalaninen. Are we supposed to read and understand the Instituta Cnuti? Seriously? Hauskalainen is plainly engaged in original research. Stop it! Show us third party reliable sourcing that makes your point. Give us a chance to verify this Second Amendment theory from the Instituta Cnuti in third party reliable sourcing. Don't tell us what the sourcing says, just identify your sourcing and let us read it ourselves. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 16:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Hauskalainen @SaltyBoatr and @The Four Deuces. Neither of you accepts it as a natural right? SCOTUS thinks it was and it cites Blackstone and others for this.

By the time of the founding, the right to have arms had become fundamental for English subjects. [See Malcolm 122–134]. Blackstone, whose works, we have said, “constituted the preeminent authority on English law for the founding generation,” [Alden v. Maine, 527 U. S. 706, 715 (1999)], cited the arms provision of the Bill of Rights as one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen.[See 1 Black-stone 136, 139–140 (1765)999. His description of it cannot possibly be thought to tie it to militia or military service. It was, he said, “the natural right of resistance and self-preservation,” [id., at 139], and “the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence,”[id., at 140;see also 3 id., at 2–4 (1768)]. Other contemporary authorities concurred. [See G. Sharp, Tracts, Concerning the Ancient and Only True Legal Means of National Defence, by a Free Militia 17–18, 27 (3d ed. 1782); 2 J. de Lolme, The Rise and Progress of the English Constitution 886–887 (1784) (A. Stephens ed. 1838); W. Blizard, Desultory Reflections on Police 59–60 (1785)]. Thus, the right secured in 1689 as a result of the Stuarts’ abuses was by the time of the founding understood to be an individual right protecting against both public and private violence

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

What makes you think that you are right and the majority on the Supreme Court are wrong?--Hauskalainen (talk) 00:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Nowhere in the Supreme Court decision or in the text you quote does it say that the right is a "natural right". Could you please look that term up and stop using it wrongly. Secondly, the reference you provide to "the right secured in 1689" is evidence that the right did not exist before 1689. TFD (talk) 00:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Now you are playing WP:Game. The Supreme Court clearly quotes from 3 sources. Each of those sources says these things. I am not using the term wrongly. It is not right to say the right did not exist before 1689. It said it was SECURED in 1689. You cannot secure something which did not previously exist. The security was the constitional position that the King had no right to disarm proestant as he had previously done so. The Second Amendment only provides that the Federal Government shall not infringe the right of the people to have arms. It's about restrictions on the Federal government and not the grant of a new right to keep and bear arms. That right came from the common law (of which natural law is a part) and is subject to law set down by the States just as the right in English law can be modified in parliament. --Hauskalainen (talk) 01:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Nowhere in DC Heller do the judges say that there is a "natural right" to keep and bear arms. And you cannot secure something that you already possess. (E.g., when you enter into a contract you secure the right to take possession of goods or services which may not yet have been manufactured or performed.) Please look up these terms. Also, please stop making accusations. TFD (talk) 02:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm on the side of TFD and Salty here. Recognize too that those two, in my estimation, have very opposing political views on this issue (I could be wrong; that's my impression though). That said, Heller and again McDonald are relatively narrow, and it's a stretch to say that a modern court in a 1-justice majority is going to rely on a natural rights argument, particularly when that argument has been, since at least the 1940s, associated with "liberal" judges. Natural rights arguments have a role in this article, they're certainly relevant to any of the fundamental liberties, but it's a mistake to confound those natural rights with contemporary Supreme Court decisions, which are inherently original research/synthesis. Shadowjams (talk) 10:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Answering Hauskalainen's question of 00:29 - We have discussed this same question several times now. Could you stop it with the delay game please? Get to work addressing my specific questions about the text you inserted into the article. Stop delaying. If you fail to reply, I will conclude shortly that you choose not to reply and I'll proceed to make edits deleting your problematic text.

The problem with your reliance on dicta in Heller is that there is much credible criticism[34][35][36][37][38] of the veracity of Scalia's dicta in Heller, which raises a red flag. If your "ancient 'natural right' in English history" thesis is sound, you should be easily be capable of finding confirmation in third party reliable sourcing, and not need to search out confirmation in primary court rulings. And, at most, Scalia's dicta in that primary court ruling is one opinion, and we still need to include not just your favorite POV, but we must fairly and neutrally include all significant POV's seen in reliable sourcing. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 13:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces We do not need the judges to say this in their judgement. I am using the judges to show that these are reliable sources. What the sources say is what they say, and that is that the right was regarded as a natural one.--Hauskalainen (talk) 06:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

SB continues his tried and true BS yet again. One of the above criticism is not a criticism of Scalia but a criticism of the dissent to Heller which obviously Scalia had nothing to do with.71.184.184.238 (talk) 15:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

My comments on those criticisms can be found here

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

@SaltyBoatr It would be helpful if you could bring your complaints about the text in the English history section here. I am not going to keep copying them over from the sandbox. I've done it enough times already. Now its your turn. You have had 5 days to do so since you had the article protected. If you want them discussed, bring the issues you have to the "Issues with the English History" section and number them in the series I have established. If you just want references for things that have been in the article for a long time then you can go back and add these yourself when the protection is lifted. I am not your nurse maid (though sometimes it fells like I am). If you think there are controversial statements that were NOT in the previous versions before my recent edits I'll be glad to get you a citation. If I have not done that by the time the protection is lifted,, just put a citation request into the article space at the appropriate point. Thank you for listing all those "credible criticism" articles re Heller. I have not read them all but the first one which I have read seems to support much of what I have been saying!! If you think that there are elements in these articles which dispute the presumption that the right to arms existed BEFORE the Bil of Rights then I think you must point out where this is said. As I read the first article you presented to us it seems to support my position and not yours. --Hauskalainen (talk) 06:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

No need. Please use the English history sandbox to see where citations are needed in your proposed text. I am not reassured by your statement "I'll be glad to get you a citation." Rather than a promise to do it in the future, you should just get the citations we have asked for now. Be aware, that per policy, the text which you have inserted that lacks verification can (and will) be removed after the page lock lifts. Also, I believe that should you revert to reinsert text that lacks citation, that will be considered to be disruptive editing. The purpose of this week of page protection is to allow us to work things out on the talk page, and stalling is a bad idea. Insert the requested citations now, or expect that the text will be removed. Neither should we be using this talk page to discuss your "issues" or "myths". It shouldn't take 100,000 words of talk to provide citations for ten sentences. Provide the requested[39] citations now! SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 14:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Back to the same old BS by SB! 71.184.184.238 (talk) 14:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

McDonald decision

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

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

No. We should be using reliable secondary sources. Directly reading the decision is using primary sources. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 14:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Did I say "only"? We should read the McDonald opinions, in addition to using reliable sources, before updating the article. I'm sure everyone, other than you, understood my meaning in the original comment. SMP0328. (talk) 14:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I apologize. Sometimes I have a hard time understanding what you write. What did you mean when you wrote: "we should read the decision so we update it correctly"? SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 15:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

We should read the opinions so we can provide exact citations when referring to any part of any of those opinions. Of course, any such citations will be provided together with reliable secondary sources. SMP0328. (talk) 15:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The Supreme Court violated WP:NOR and WP:NPOV and their opinion will not be permitted here until corrected by sources found to be reliable by all editors. In the meanwhile this article is a catastrophe. Go start reading at the top and tell me how far you have to go before you even find what the Second Amendment means. - McOrion (talk) 16:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe that wikipedia must bow to the Supreme Court on a question of law and not the other way round.96.237.120.38 (talk) 17:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I vote McOrion goes to Washington to order the Supreme Court to change its decision, so that it is in accord with wiki policies. 96.237.120.38 (talk) 18:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Some press accounts of the outcome of the Bilski patent case have been laughably wrong to this point. Secondary sources definitely require a once-over. However, I would like to point out that the syllabus of the case at the beginning is a secondary source. It is not written by the Justices, but is the Court Reporter's own summary of what the Justices wrote, prepended to the actual text of the case. bd2412 T 17:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

McOrion, the Supreme Court is not bound by Wiki-policy and did cite secondary sources in its opinion. SMP0328. (talk) 17:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

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

On legal articles it looks like wiki policy prefers primary sources over secondary sources. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Secondary_sources Law In the legal field, source classification is important because the persuasiveness of a source usually depends upon its history. Primary sources may include cases, constitutions, statutes, administrative regulations, and other sources of binding legal authority, while secondary legal sources may include books, articles, and encyclopedias.[17] Legal writers usually prefer to cite primary sources because only primary sources are authoritative and precedential, while secondary sources are only persuasive at best.[18]96.237.120.38 (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

In retrospect, for an article on the Second Amendment, the only primary source is the Second Amendment; any court decision explaining the underlying meaning of the Amendment would be a secondary source. Of course, the decision in McDonald would be a primary source for the article, McDonald v. Chicago. bd2412 T 19:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

"Legal writers usually prefer to cite primary sources...." Exactly. We are not legal writers. TFD (talk) 20:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

If you are writing about a legal issue, you are a legal writer.96.237.120.38 (talk) 20:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

That quote[40] is taken from a book written to help legal scholars in academic writing. It is not a guide for writing tertiary sources. We are editors, not writers. TFD (talk) 21:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's be honest with each other. It seems that many editors around here favor quoting snippets from the obiter dictum of court rulings because they find it useful to advance the agenda of their personal ideology. That gets it backwards and would violate WP:NPOV. The policy here is to read all the sourcing (including that with which we disagree), then we are to write an article that matches the sourcing. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 21:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's be honest with each other. It seems that at least one editor favors quoting from alleged historians because they find it useful to advance the agenda of their personal ideology. That gets it backwards and would violate WP:NPOV. The policy here is to read all the sourcing (including that with which we disagree), then we are to write an article that matches the sourcing. 71.184.184.238 (talk) 14:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. The "exception" for primary sources as it's meant in those guidelines is for obvious stuff, like "the court voted x-x" or "Alito joined the majority", or "the court remanded". Things like that. Those are fine. It's not within guidelines to start drawing conclusions from an opinion, or worse yet, from a series of opinions. That's what law review articles are for, and if you want to be a legal writer and write a law review article, say hello to the library, goodbye to the sun, and we'll see you in 3 months. Shadowjams (talk) 22:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Ah, Anastrophe, if everybody abandoned the "circle-jerk" then we would be left with only one user jerking the article alone. P.S. I have to appreciate the sublime humor behind the fact that on the day of the most definitive court ruling in the history of the second amendment, the article here is locked behind another "crocodile tears" lock. It couldn't be more fitting if it had been planned. - McOrion (talk) 02:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Haha... It's hardly "bickering", rather than uncontroversial applications of policy being discussed here. There's no hurry. Let's incorporate the obvious facts into the articles (seem to have been done quite well) and in time the scholarly output (trust me, it will be quick) will fill in the gaps. I always love the "I left the encyclopedia..." style talk page edits. If you're interested in the topic, responsible, and still here, then help, let's quit this meta debate bullshit. Shadowjams (talk) 09:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

If you want to see/source the wording of the amendment on the constitution, you look at / source the constitution, you don't go to a newspaper for it's opinion on what the wording is. Any rule that someone says says otherwise is etither faulty, or being misapplied. It is beyond a reliable source, it is by definition correct. Ditto for the Supreme Court's on it's meaning. North8000 (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I fully understand your point, but actually no, we don't go directly to the source. I said above that we do if that involves very basic facts, but Supreme Court decisions are hardly self explanatory. To think otherwise is a naive understanding of how case law works. Multiply that by the fact that a number of decisions, this one included, have a majority not agreeing on the precise way to reach the same conclusion. It's not sufficient to use primary sources and that's why we have policy about that. Shadowjams (talk) 20:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The "meaning" of a Supreme Court opinion depends on interpretation of the Ratio decidendi versus the Obiter dictum. People spend big bucks and many years learning at expensive law schools, and they still don't agree about how to interpret this! It is almost always against policy here for editors around here to attempt to directly interpret the meaning of dicta in court rulings. The policy here is descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge. Needing a law school education is considered 'specialist knowledge', I think. Fortunately, this is not a problem for us because there is sooooo much excellent secondary sourcing available for the 2A topic. It is typically easy to find the info you want by using secondary sourcing as opposed to directly reading the court document. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 20:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Secondary sources which include alleged historians who couldn't find their ass with two hands, directions, a map, a gps and explicit instuctions.71.184.184.238 (talk) 14:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Usmc85, 29 June 2010

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

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

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

This looks like a good idea, but specific text supported by consensus of editors here (or at least unlikely to be opposed) is necessary before the article can be updated. This edit takes care of saying that the ruling is out now. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a tricky criteria to use in this case. From the folks who did not like the ruling and its significance, and wish it wasn't so, accurate and on-target writing is the text most likely to be opposed. North8000 (talk) 10:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The wording should more closely match the specific effect of the court ruling, which like Heller "...gives individuals the right to have handguns in the home for self defense." SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 13:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Heller does not "give" anything. At best it upholds the pre existing right to arms.71.184.184.238 (talk) 14:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

following the pattern of this article, how bout we just give the main meaning and concept an indirect sentence or two, and then give undue weight to discussing that it wasn't a unanimous opinion, discussing the dissenting minority opinion as much as the majority opinion. And then lots of undue weight coverage with a spin towards saying it has minimal relevance. Maybe use wiki-lawyering to keep the main concepts from getting in very much, and to give the above undue weight items lots of coverage. North8000 (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

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

 Done by AliveFreeHappy. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

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

That professor is an idiot since the Chicago laws are still on the books and based on the ruling, those "still on the books" laws will get deep-sixed.71.184.184.238 (talk) 18:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

McDonald as it pertains to the ancient English History section

Plainly, the McDonald court ruling is going to give fodder to this talk page debate over what the reliable sourcing says about the "true view" of English History behind the Second Amendment. (Or the 'myth'.) Obviously, it is early to say, but here is an analysis at SCOTUSblog[41] which has two themes. 1)There is tension between POV's as to the "self-defense" rational and 2) There is disagreement about timelines. Our 2A article must walk a neutral path, and present all significant POV's seen in reliable sourcing fairly. For instance, one POV places a greater emphasis on the "self-defense" rational than another POV. And, the bigger deal here, the point #2 describes how perceptions of the meaning of the 2A have evolved over the 220 year history of this country. The perception of the 2A during Reconstruction was entirely different than the modern interpretation. While some may argue that the true meaning of the 2A has been what they deem today to be the "original meaning", we see in this paper that another significant viewpoint is that the popular meaning has been changing. The conclusion of the SCOTUSblog article casts doubt on the value of law office history as being useful to academic historians. Our challenge is to fairly write these disparate ideas seen in these various sources into the article. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 17:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Natural right

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

Rights derived from natural rights are themselves natural rights. Granted rights derived from granted rights are themselves granted rights. Two examples. The right to keep and bear arms is derived from the right to defend yourself. The right to defend yourself is a natural right, so the right to arms is a natural right. The right to food stamps on the other hand is a granted right. The right to spend your food stamp money is derived from the the granted right to food stamps and is therefore itself a granted right.

Snippets from them the McDonald opinion that may help understand the difference between defending yourself (a right you always have) and getting food stamps (a right based on income and also a right that did not exist prior to the passage of the food stamp laws).

It has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amend-ments, codified a pre-existing right

Lysander Spooner championed the popular abolitionist argument that slavery was inconsistent with constitutional principles, citing as evidence the fact that it deprived black Americans of the “natural right of all men‘to keep and bear arms’ for their personal defence,” which he believed the Constitution “prohibit[ed] both Congress and the State governments from infringing.” L. Spooner,The Unconstitutionality of Slavery

Heller’s conclusion that “individual self-defense” was “the central component” of the Second Amendment’s right “to keep and bear Arms” rested upon its view that the Amendment “codified a pre-existing right” that had “nothing whatever to do with service in a militia71.184.184.238 (talk) 14:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

If you accept that natural = fundamental then also see the following quote - Please note that citations have been removed for clarity

Heller explored the right’s origins, noting that the 1689 English Bill of Rights explicitly protected a right to keep arms for self-defense, and that by 1765, Blackstone was able to assert that the right to keep and bear arms was “one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen,”. Blackstone’s assessment was shared by the American colonists. As we noted in Heller, King George III’s attempt to disarm the colonists in the 1760’s and 1770’s “provoked polemical reactions by Americans invoking their rights as Englishmen to keep arms.” The right to keep and bear arms was considered no less fundamental by those who drafted and ratified the Bill of Rights. “During the 1788 ratification debates, the fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia was pervasive in Anti federalist rhetoric.71.184.184.238 (talk) 14:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

If you accept that unalienable = natural then the following from the Declaration of Independence should also be of help

'"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.71.184.184.238 (talk) 14:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Then we have the Bill of Rights itself which says

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

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

Neither of those sources says that it is a "natural right". Blackstone calls it an auxiliary right and the Lords call it an ancient right. Please find a source that calls it a natural right or stop claiming that it is one. Lysander Spooner's reference (from 1860!) to "the natural right" is not persuasive. Your argument, "Rights derived from natural rights are themselves natural right" is Sythesis. Please find a reliable source that calls them "natural rights". Your comment, "they are widely believed to be natural rights because they are not a right granted at any previous time in history" is false, not supported by sources. As for your statement, "your view is that...", I have no idea what you are talking about. When did I ever say that? I have not presented any views other than that we follow reliable sources. BTW I created this section because you keep claiming that they are natural rights. Could you please read up about what the term "natural rights" means so we can stop this unneccessary discussion. TFD (talk) 15:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The right to self defense is an "ancient right" going all the way back to Ugh the caveman. It is a "natural right because nobody gives it you. It is an "unalienable" right because no one can take it away from you, and lastly, it is a "fundamental" right because if it wasn't someone would KILL YOU! 71.184.184.238 (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

and it is an "auxiliary" right because it is derived from the primary right to life. From the dictionary "auxiliary" - 1 a : offering or providing help b  : functioning in a subsidiary capacity. Do you GET IT yet?71.184.184.238 (talk) 18:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It is frustrating that Hauskalainen seems incapable of pointing to third party secondary sourcing, and instead favors telling us over and over again using thousands of words his personal thoughts cluttering the talk page. That said, perhaps the compromise here is that the "natural rights" viewpoint of the Second Amendment does exist in reliable sourcing relative to modern times in the USA. Certainly in recent times advocates of one of the POV's have sought to frame a "natural rights" argument, and we could neutrally describe that they are doing this. It doesn't look like we can blindly parrot their 'originalism' assertion that this is an ancient connection. But, we can say that "persons X,Y&Z" claim it has an ancient connection in English history. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 16:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Please provide a source that anyone calls the right to keep and bear arms a natural right. TFD (talk) 17:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Funny thing! I did that this morning! Lysander Spooner championed the popular abolitionist argument that slavery was inconsistent with constitutional principles, citing as evidence the fact that it deprived black Americans of the “natural right of all men‘to keep and bear arms’ for their personal defence,” which he believed the Constitution “prohibit[ed] both Congress and the State governments from infringing.” L. Spooner,The Unconstitutionality of Slavery

Did you miss natural right of all men‘to keep and bear arms’?71.184.184.238 (talk) 17:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

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

I disagree in one respect. The right is the right to self defense. The Founders were more worried about self-defense from an abusive government. In the 19th Century the emphasis was placed on "self defense" from you fellow man. The right has always been about self defense. The emphasis on who you defend yourself from is the only thing that has changed.71.184.184.238 (talk) 18:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All your questions above are about what is WP:TRUTH, or not. We should not engage in a discussion of personal beliefs about truth or myth on this talk page. The way it works around here is what is WP:NOTTRUTH. To get an answer to that, we need to verify by checking your sources. Tell us your sources, and then we can answer the questions, by verifying the answer in the sources. Tell us your sources!!! SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 01:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

All of your objections amount to nothing more then censorship of a POV that you don't agree with. Again: Please stop objecting to material already supported in the article. In the "Experience in America prior to the U.S. Constitution" Section the right to defend yourself is already listed as a "natural right" supported by citation 28 as follows

early American settlers viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms as important for facilitating a --> natural right of self-defense supported by this citation -Hardy, p. 1237. "Early Americans wrote of the right in light of three considerations: (1) as auxiliary to a natural right of self-defense; (2) as enabling an armed people to deter undemocratic government; and (3) as enabling the people to organize a militia system." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.184.238 (talk) 12:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Your source does not say the right to arms is a natural right, but an auxiliary right. TFD (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Maloney v. Rice - vacated & remanded

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

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

Thanks. Now if only the latest war over this article could be resolved. SMP0328. (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Lrenh, 1 July 2010

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

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

Could you please explain what you want changing? Thank you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Just a guess, but maybe because it is no longer "an open question" and McDonald is not "currently before the Court". I also have to say that this is the crappiest timing I've ever seen to totally protect a page from being edited when an event has happened that has completely changed everything about the subject matter. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Chicago Kent problem issue

I put in a request to get the following question answered

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Chicago_Kent_Law_Review_-_one_specific_issue_only

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit request from Dbebell, 2 July 2010

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

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

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

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

Dispute resolution

Gradually working our way through the steps of dispute resolution.

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

• Speaking for myself, see above for evidence, yes I have been focusing on content, keeping as cool as possible and patiently discussing. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 16:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

2 Resolving disputes 2.1 Sensitive and privacy-related issues

• Avoiding the 'outing' the AnonIP. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 16:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

2.2 Editor assistance

• Requested editor assistance here [42] Reply was to set up a WP:3O and/or an RFC. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 16:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

2.3 Ask for a third opinion

• Opened WP:3O here[43], and the answer is here[44] in a nutshell we should be concerned with "What do the sources say, not what the truth actually is." SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 16:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

2.4 Ask about the subject

• Made a posting[45] on the Wikilaw discussion page requesting input here. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 16:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

2.5 Ask about a policy

2.6 Ask for help at a relevant noticeboard

• Requested input from the WP:NOR noticeboard[46]. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 16:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
• Request posed to the WP:RS noticeboard here[47].SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 12:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• At at the same noticeboard again for the main point of contention about disregard of the standard view of history--Hauskalainen (talk) 17:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

2.7 For incivility

• Administrative actions against the AnonIP for WP:NPA and WP:DE, see [48][49][50][51][52][53][54]. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 16:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
• Admin incident noticeboard re: AnonIP[55] SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 19:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

2.8 Request a comment

• Initiated an RfC[56] seeking outside comments. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 14:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

2.9 Informal mediation

• It seems like it might be time to proceed with this step of requesting informal mediation. What do others think? SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 19:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
• Informal mediation initiated here[57]. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 20:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
• Hauskalainen refusal to participate in mediation here[58]. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 16:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I was being asked to mediate by you but the mediator who came forward seems to have just 2 days experience of editing Wikipedia! I was not born yesterday! It seemed like a put up a job. Besides, we had not exhausted other forms of mediation.--Hauskalainen (talk) 17:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

2.10 Formal mediation

• Information mediation was refused[59]. It seems the next step is to try formal mediation. What do other editors think? Are the parties to the dispute willing to participate in format mediation? SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 16:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• • The mediator's offer was rejected because the mediator had no editing history. Who was this guy? Your alter-ego? Also I did not think that we had exausted all means to resolve the dispute. I had not raised my main complaint (that you were structuting the article to tell one version of history when in fact this is a recent revisionist view which has not had wide acceptance by the academic community and the other, more traditional view should have much greater weight than this revisionist one and which the article (because of the way it has been edited in the past and which I am now trying to correct) had completed expunged this more traditional view of history completely. Hauskalainen (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

2.11 Conduct a survey

3 If the situation is urgent

4 Last resort: Arbitration

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

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