Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

RfC: English History Section of this article

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

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

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

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

Verion 1 is this:-

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

Version 2 is this:-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree that the English had always had the right to arms and frankly it saddens me to see that Parliament has now taken that right away from just about everyone in England, excepting a few farmers and assorted law enforcement. Regarding your complaints above I believe one editor is engaged in EXCESSIVE obstructionism and POV censorship. Pretty much everyone else is pushing their personal beliefs in a "normal" manner. Nobody likes to admit that they are wrong, and it takes much beating over the head and shoulders before people change their minds. Many never do.

Hopefully the following article will be of use to you. http://old.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel091602.asp71.184.184.238 (talk) 02:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

This can be changed "Scholars and lawyers recognize that the Second Amendment has its origins in the text of the English Bill of Rights of 1689 though one disputes its relevance.". Wiki policy is not to include small minority opinions. One is about a small of a minority as you can get.71.184.184.238 (talk) 02:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

This can be changed as well "The right to bear arms in English history is believed to have been regarded as a natural right for the preservation of the person, though one American historian has expressed a contrary view that the right developed over a period of 500 or so years beginning in the twelfth century." Wiki policy is not to include small minority opinions. One is about a small of a minority as you can get.71.184.184.238 (talk) 02:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

This is plainly wrong "On the face of it, it seems that both the American and the English texts are about the granting of a right to arms; in the U.S. case, a right granted to the Militias of the individual states, and in the English case to the subjects that are protestants." The US Bill of Rights protects a pre-existing right, and I believe that the English Bill of Right does the same.71.184.184.238 (talk) 02:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

This is wrong "The English text used the term to have arms while the American text uses the term bear arms which historians have described as having a military connotation in context of the necessity for militia to protect a free state." In Heller the Supreme Court stated that bear arms means to carry arms and that this term does not have a military connotation. I went and checked an older "large" dictionary from Merriam Webster and the primary meaning was "to carry" and the secondary was "to serve as a soldier". The primary meaning takes precedence (is assumed) unless otherwise indicated. 71.184.184.238 (talk) 02:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The author this RfC has been asked repeatly to provide sources for this because we can only put into the article what is in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 05:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Your objection is not clear. Try again!71.184.184.238 (talk) 11:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Think the objection (which I agree with) is that it is not something that can be sorted out by debating what the historical-legal position is. We need sources that support the wording of the text. This claim: "the right to bear arms in English history is believed to have been regarded as a natural right for the preservation of the person" has no sourcing, for example. Since it appears to be disputed, it shouldn't really be there unless a good source can be found. --FormerIP (talk) 13:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The right of self preservation is the right to self defense. See Blackstone's "fifth auxiliary right" which states in part "The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence". The statement would sound better if changed as follows "The right to bear arms in English history was in support of the natural right of self defense" or something similar. An auxiliary right is a "supporting" right. 71.184.184.238 (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Blackstone saw it as more than that, something required in order to protect other natural rights as well.[1] TFD (talk) 16:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Self defense covers a lot of ground - up to and including armed revolt against tyrants.71.184.184.238 (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It needs to be explained properly, because not only is the right to bear arms auxiliary to the right to self defense, but the Whigs considered it essential in order to protect all natural rights. But they did not see it as a natural right in itself, but rather a right that was necessary in order to protect natural rights. TFD (talk) 02:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

You have the right to life and you have the right to breathe. Breathing is an auxiliary right to the right to life. It is also a natural right, so an auxiliary right can be a natural right. In the case of arms, perhaps you are right that the right to arms is not a natural right and is only an auxiliary right. Then again you may be wrong as the Supreme Court cited Revolutionary War era documents which state that the right to arms is a natural right. Personally I don't think it matters much if either of those words is used in the article, and it probably is better just to call it "a right" or "the right". Per the wiki article on natural rights "In contrast, natural rights (also called moral rights or inalienable rights) are rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity. Natural rights are thus necessarily universal, whereas legal rights are culturally and politically relative." I hope we can agree that the right to breathe is not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society"71.184.184.238 (talk) 03:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The article is supposed to represent mainstream views of the Second Amendment as found in reliable sources, and there is no reason why we should be discussing the right to keep milk or to breathe except as they are found in reliable sources relating to this subject. If reliable sources all say they are natural rights, then they are natural rights. If reliable sources say auxiliary rights are natural rights, then they are natural rights. But it is not up to us to determine our own definitions of these terms. TFD (talk) 04:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you now understand that an auxiliary right can be a natural right?71.184.184.238 (talk) 12:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It does not matter what I understand or how persuasive your arguments may be. You need a reliable source that states that auxiliary rights are natural rights.

Salty Boatr - You are already in violation of 3RR

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

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

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

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

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

Intervening posts by others exist for your 4 changes below

1)http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=371540540&oldid=371539403

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

3) http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=371544038&oldid=371543851

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

It's a bit rich for Salty to complain about me "edit warring" when he blatantly goes about adding back into the article material which is clearly POV but not marked as such. Especially when this has been the major issue which I have raised over and over again at the talk page during the last page protection period. How can it "flow from a long tradition of militia service" if it is in any case a right emanating from the "natural right to life"? His reference did not even say that! It must come from the first and not the second! He accuses me of writing without references and presenting bias but my goodness what a nerve he has! Now I see he has complained about me indirectly again and is seeking another page protection. Is he going to get another friendly editor to sneak in some more changes through and then get a sympathetic Admin to slap on the page protection before he goes on on vacation? --Hauskalainen (talk) 17:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not up speed on this natural right debate here. But judging based on discussions on the other aspects, I think that Salty is incessantly pushing a POV, and is using his/her wikipedia-saaviness (and endless badgering in this talk section) to push his/her POV rather than to improve the article.North8000 (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree 100%!71.184.184.238 (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Rather, I am guilty of NPOV pushing. Policy says we must write articles from a neutral point of view, representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias.. Deletion of content just because you personally dislike it is against policy. Your accusation of POV pushing is uncivil and false. Discuss content, not editors. If we disagree about WP:NPOV lets take it the NPOV noticeboard. Also, it probably is time to proceed to formal mediation. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 02:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

You are guilty of a 3RR violation and if you truly believed that deletion of content you dislike is against policy, you would stop doing it. So tell me, why did you delete the reference to militia and replaced it with slave control as a reason for the Second? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.184.238 (talk) 03:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey, guys

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

My changes were listed above in "English history of the article". 71.184.184.238 (talk) 19:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

What if some, but not all, editors are willing to compromise? Will only the non-compromising editor(s) be blocked or will all of the editors involved in this dispute be blocked? SMP0328. (talk) 19:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see only SaltyBoatr is in violation of 3RR. Why should others be punished? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.184.238 (talk) 19:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Hauskalainen

You say the Second prohibits Congress from changing the law

1) What law are you talking about?

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

English History section dispute

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

So when I take this to arbitration you will have no comment?

The issue is the structuring of the article to tall these myths. If you want to continue with this nonsense that there was no right to arms in England before the 12th century you had better have something stronger than a one liner from a professor sympathetic to the gun lobby and the protection of gun holders rights. That's a bit POV I'd say. Also, you had better have some stronger evidence for the claim that the Bill of Rights was a GRANTING of new rights amd not a restitution of pre-existing ones. If you lose that argument then you'll lose the right to tell the myth of progression too because it SIMPLY DOES NOT STAND UP TO SCRUTINY. Sorry.

You'd do better to discuss the points that I have made with some sincerity and stop using arguments of rules of content to try to block this. My words are not intended as content but as something to stand before a body of people examining my claims. I will provide plenty of evidenece when we get to that stage and I think you are clear in your own mind that I can do so. Hence your admission that there may indeed be something in what I am saying.

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

And Salty's comment about bickering is incredible in the light of this http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=371540540&oldid=371539403 edit later on which completely ignored the complaints that have been made that he is pushing one POV to the exclsuion of others! The right to bear ams in England comes, according to MOST legal and historical scholars from the right to life. What he wrote he (that it stems from an obligation to do military service flies in the face of all evidence we have about arms in England - that they existed long before the formalization of a legal system. Even cavemen had arms and no doubt used them from time to time.--Hauskalainen (talk) 07:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Saltyboatr's position is reasonable. If you want to put an interpretation of history into the article then you must find a reliable source (not a court judgment or a 200 year old account), but a contemporary peer reviewed article in an academic journal or a book published by the academic press. Saltyboatr has provided one such source and if you want other views presented, you must provide sources also. It may well be that scholarship favors your view, but without sources we cannot present it. TFD (talk) 21:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

If that source is Malcolm,look up what the Supremes said that she said. It should be easy. I put it on this discussion page.96.237.120.38 (talk) 15:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

What English case before the Bill of Rights 1689 established that the right to bear arms existed? TFD (talk) 16:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The "case" of English public opinion. Nearly every major English law protecting peoples rights was won, as Blackstone put it "sword in hand". The Magna Carta and Bill of Rights were not exceptions. In case you missed it, King James II was run out of England, this time GUN IN HAND, partially for disarming Protestants while arming Catholics (his power base/support group).96.237.120.38 (talk) 20:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure who you are addressing this question. The thing you are likely to find with the answer is that there are different answers depending the point of view. We, per policy, need to neutrally address all significant points of view.

Also, an ambiguity of the phasing of your question is that "bear arms" has different meanings to different people, and indeed in different time frames. Certainly, in recent decades "bear arms" most commonly means "having guns", or similar. One POV believes that this 'guns' meaning is universal over centuries of time. Another POV believes in the English Language of centuries ago, "bear arms" (with a few rare exceptions) almost always means to "serve military duty". See the famous 1995 Garry Wills article[2] about this. One familiar example is the usage of the term "bear arms" in the Declaration of Independence where the term was used to describe service on the deck of a warship by conscripted sailors[3] who for fear of mutiny against the British officers certainly had no access to guns or gun powder what-so-ever. In any case, we should give coverage to all the points of view.

Regarding "common law". It is striking that the AnonIP and Hauskalainen have repeatedly failed to provide third party reliable sourcing that having weapons (which is arguably not the same thing as 'bearing arms') is considered to be common law. Though, I suspect that if you looked hard enough you could find a source that said it was. Funny thing is that when I went looking to find a source that says that having weapons is considered to be protected by Common Law, I stumbled across a book that said exactly the opposite. It said that the crime of carrying weapons...may be considered part of the common law. (dating to 1328). In any case, we should give this coverage, AND we should covering all the significant points of view (not just the favorite POVs of the editors) and we should be checking all the content for verifiability. So, the next step is to find the reliable sourcing.

This is contentious and we should be careful to give fair treatment to all significant POV's. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 19:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

In the US the right to arm is not "common law". It is a part of the Bill of Rights and therefore "civil law".96.237.120.38 (talk) 20:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I read your link and it states that under common law, it was a misdemeanor to carry weapons, the ruling does not say that one can't have weapons at home. 96.237.120.38 (talk) 20:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

BTW: that ruling you referenced was based on a "statute" and today would be considered a matter of "civil law", not common law. 96.237.120.38 (talk) 20:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

According to S. C. v. Dawson (1968),[4] "going armed with unusual and dangerous weapons to the terror of the people" is a misdemeanor at common-law. This offense was later incorporated in the statute of Northhampton of 2 Edw. III, ch. 3. (Riding or Going Armed Act 1328 c. 3). (See: List of Acts of the Parliament of England to 1601). Both of these laws continue in U. S. unless repealed or superceded. Blackstone wrote about the offense in his Commentaries, Book 4, chapter 11, para 9 (p. 149).[5] Still we need reliable contemporary sources that explain whether there was a common law right to keep arms and how this related to the common law misdemeanor of "going armed". (PS - IP, SaltyBoatr's source says, "the crime... may be regarded as part of the common law...." IOW, it is an offence under common law but is normally prosecuted under statute law, and common law prosecutions are extremely rare.) TFD (talk) 20:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Without sourcing, this hypothesizing about ancient rights is not anything more than irrelevant personal research. There is plenty of great high quality sourcing about the 2A, let's just read it all, then write an article that fairly captures all the significant points of view. (And you write: "keep arms" and "going armed" while per plenty of sources, it is not at all clear that this is the same thing as "bearing arms".) I am tired of hearing people's personal theories and the sloppy blurring of the distinction between "having guns" and "bearing arms". That personal chatter may be valuable, but it has no place on this article talk page. Ultimately, it is disruptive. Let's talk about what we read in the sourcing and how to improve the article. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 20:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

A gun is a "usual weapon" and not an unusual weapon. Also "self defense" is not "for the terror of the people". And by definition every weapon is "dangerous". If it wasn't it wouldn't be a weapon.96.237.120.38 (talk) 12:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Cramer (who is mentioned in this article), argued that the common law right to keep and bear arms derived from common law, and adds, "Of more importance to a study of the liberal nature of the Second Amendment are the laws with respect to armed self-defense. "The Laws of Cnut ( 1020-1023) not only considered armed self-defense a right and duty," but provided for penalties for illegally disarming a man." (Cramer, Clayton E. For the Defense of Themselves and the State: The Original Intent and Judicial Interpretation of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Westport, CT.: Praeger Publisher, 1994. p. 24.) His reference is to Norman A. V. B., and Don Pottinger, English Weapons & Warfare: 449-1660, (New York: Dorset Press, 1979), pp. 38-40. Unfortunately the only evidence he presents is Coke and Blackstone, and he does not mention whether Cnut's law confirmed existing common law or whether it continued in force beyond 1066. TFD (talk) 01:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The Supreme Court stated that to "bear arms" means to "carry arms". This quote, from Heller, is included in the Article.

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

Common law right to arms prior to English Bill of Rights

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

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

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

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

also of note from Caplan

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

What is your point? TFD (talk) 21:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I seem to remember quite a bit of bitching about no sources for the common law right to arms. Quite recently as a matter of fact. Like today! Just think this also satisfies your "Will you stick to history" bitch. Among other things, this legislative history demonstrates that the English Bill of Rights' provision on the right to keep arms was a reaction to previous seizures of privately held arms, and that the solemn understanding was reached that such seizures should never occur again.. It seems that I was sticking to history.96.237.120.38 (talk) 21:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Notice the reference to the 1328 Statute of Northampton, which is an early gun control law[6]. This cut and paste above, if anything, undercuts the premise that a right to arms is considered protected under common law in England. That 1328 Statute[7], controlling arms, is part of common law. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 21:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

And the courts chose to interpret the law in a way that is upheld prior "unwritten" common law, and not in a way that "supplanted" prior common law. The court further noted that the Statute of Northampton was "but an affirmance" of the common law.96.237.120.38 (talk) 22:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The question is whether the right to bear arms was created by the Bill of Rights 1689 or whether it existed earlier. Your quote and comments support the view that the Bill created the right. TFD (talk) 22:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

@TFD The 1689 Bill of Rights uses the wording "have arms" not the wording "bear arms". There is a difference. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 22:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You still don't get the Supreme Court language on your position do you. Again: The short version direct from the US Supreme Court.The right "to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game" is worthy of the mad hatter.96.237.120.38 (talk) 22:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

If the first recorded violation of the right to arms happened in 1181 against Jews, then it is reasonable to state that prior to 1181, this right existed for all, and was not created in 1689. I personally can't see how something written in 1689 can create something that existed before 1181. If you can do so, please explain. 96.237.120.38 (talk) 22:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing please. Your modern political Libertarian viewpoint of universal rights needs to be cited in third party reliable sourcing. I believe that most sourcing identifies the origin of the concept of individual liberty came during the Age of Enlightenment, with Thomas Hobbes, and did not exist as a concept back into the mists of time. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 22:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The sourcing is the first sentence of the material cited above The first limitation in England on the right of a law-abiding person to keep and bear arms was enacted as one of the provisions in the 1181 Statute of Assize of Arms.[14]96.237.120.38 (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I am trying to follow logic, but see a big gap. You seem to be arguing that there existed a common law right to arms prior to 1181. By this logic there was a 500 year gap in this right until it was restored in 1689 with the English Bill of Rights? That seems incredible. And David Caplan is arguing that The first limitation in England on the right of a law-abiding person to keep and bear arms was enacted (in) 1181 , yet when I check the Oxford English Dictionary the earliest example of the term 'bear arms' being used in the English Language was 400 years later 1568. How can the first limitation on bearing arms happen before the term 'bear arms' was coined in the English language? WP:REDFLAG And, this is relevant to judgement as to the source is 'third party', the author of that article is famous in part for his service on the board of directors of the National Rifle Association. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 00:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The right always existed, before and after 1181, and before and after the English Bill of Rights. The English Bill of Rights did not restore that right. It protected it from those that would violate it, like James II. To bear arms means to "carry" them. If you can find the word or phrase used for a person going about his business with a weapon on his person, in use before 1568, then your problem is solved. I hope we can agree that people went around armed prior to 1568. Similar words is use may have been "borne, born, bore, bare" and likely other words as well.96.237.120.38 (talk) 01:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

In the Canterbury Tales the term for holding a weapon was "beren" See Ch 51 line 25. Was wont to beren in his hand a bowe.96.237.120.38 (talk) 02:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

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

IP, please provide a source that states there was a right under common law re: arms and provide the name of the case where this issue was decided. TFD (talk) 01:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

From above: Specifically, in Rex v. Knight[20] the accused had been charged with violating the Statute of Northampton by "walk[ing] about the streets armed with guns, and go[ing] into the church of St. Michael, in Bristol, in the time of divine service, with a gun, to terrify the King's subjects."[21] Under the judge's instructions, that an essential element of the crime of violating the Statute of Northampton (p.795)was "go[ing] armed to terrify the King's subjects,"[22] the jury acquitted the accused.[23] The court further noted that the Statute of Northampton was "but an affirmance" of the common law. 96.237.120.38 (talk) 01:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I have already explained this several times. It was an offense under common law to bear arms (usually), and the common law offence was codified under the Statute of Northampton. Nothing to do with "rights". TFD (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

TFD, I think you wrote "bear arms" when you meant "carry guns". To be precise, these are not synonymous terms. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 13:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

According to the US Supreme Court "to bear" means "to carry". Something you should be familiar with by now. Yet again: Straight from the US Supreme Court. A purposive qualifying phrase that contradicts the word or phrase it modifies is unknown this side of the looking glass (except, apparently, in some courses on Linguistics). If "bear arms" means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage ("for the purpose of self-defense" or "to make war against the King"). But if "bear arms" means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add "for the purpose of killing game." The right "to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game" is worthy of the mad hatter 96.237.120.38 (talk) 13:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The accused in Rex v Knight walked around ARMED, also went to church ARMED, was charged under the Statute of Northampton and was ACQUITED. For the dense: Acquitted means he was found innocent of a violation. Since he was acquitted, it is safe to say that the court decided he had every right to go around ARMED and even go to church ARMED.03:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.120.38 (talk)

Again, without a source, there are a number of American states that incorporate the English common law as it was in 1789, and have no "open carry" laws, and by consequence, in those areas, open carry is legal. I find the notion that there was a common law prohibition on open carry, with nothing else, a little extreme. That's all kind of irrelevant to this article though, and perhaps we should focus on the discussion as to what "bear arms" right (or those that bear on that right) existed prior to the constitution's adoption. Shadowjams (talk) 06:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

He was acquitted because he did not "walk about the streets armed with guns... to terrify the King's subjects". He probably intended to protect himself, not threaten other people. Therefore he was not guilty of the offense of bearing arms, which exists both under statute and common law. Nothing about a "right to bear arms". Same thing if you were charged with being drunk and were acquitted - it does not establish a right to drink. TFD (talk) 06:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Everything about the "right to bear arms". If he can walk around armed then he has the right to bear arms.96.237.120.38 (talk) 13:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't think that at all proves that carrying a weapon was not permitted by the common law. I'd refer to my above point, and of course, as you said below, we need modern commentary on this, and I think the fact that the absence of prohibitions on open carry exist in a number of American states (and that they feel the need to be expressly outlawed in the others) suggests that the common law did not prohibit open carry in and of itself. But like we said, that's not the real point. Let's focus on those historic arguments (source of this whole argument) and their sources. Shadowjams (talk) 06:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

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

NH Constitution and Natural Rights

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

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

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

Amended 1974 adding sentence to prohibit discrimination.

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

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

It should. Clearly the right to bear arms is not a "natural" right, but an "auxiliary" right. TFD (talk) 15:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Article 2 talks about self defense being a "natural right". Self defense with a gun is a subset of that right. It is both a natural right and an auxiliary right. A right derived from a natural right is itself a natural right. 71.184.184.238 (talk) 16:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Clearly? How so? Rather, it is clear that one POV views it this way. We should include all significant points of view.

For what it is worth: This pertains to the state law in one state, New Hampshire. It is a leap of POV pushing logic that the wording of the Constitution of this one State is synonymous with the separate Constitution of the United States. (Obviously, they are different documents.) That said, I acknowledge that there is seen in reliable sourcing the strategy of looking to some of the state constitutions to find evidence and/or justification of an Individual Rights viewpoint. We should include this viewpoint in the article, but we should represent it neutrally as one viewpoint and describe in context of the other viewpoints seen. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 15:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if you are talking about "individual right" in the US legal sense. If so, the Supreme Court, defined that it is in the Heller case. In the US legal context, that, by definition, creates and defines the reality. North8000 (talk) 15:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I am talking of the various viewpoints of the Second Amendment seen in reliable sourcing. And, I think you misunderstand Heller, which affirmed Parker v. District of Columbia 478 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007). The Court states pretty clearly, I quote: "Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities in protects are not limited to militia service" (emphasis added). The court seems quite clear that it merely added an individual right component, and did not nullify void or replace the militia service component of the right(s) protected by the Second Amendment. It added an individual right component to the militia service component, the States still have a protected right to well regulated militia. Are you claiming that Heller eliminated the protection of the right for the states to have militia? SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 17:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

No, what I was saying is that, in the US legal context, that the 2nd amendment also applies to individuals, without militia related conditions is now a FACT, not an opinion. And while it may be appropriate to carry opinions that wish it would have been defined otherwise, it is not appropriate to carry opinions that claim that it IS otherwise. Just as, (per my previous analogy) while it might be appropriate to carry opinions that McCain SHOULD have been elected president, it is not appropriate to carry opinions that claim that he WAS elected president. North8000 (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Your analogy would also apply to pointing to the New Hampshire Constitution when the topic is the United States Constitution. Someone here might wish that the NH Constitution SHOULD have been used by the USA, but that doesn't make it so. I don't see your concern about militia related conditions, no one here is arguing for that. I am just noticing that there remains in WP:RS to be a militia based component in the 2A topic, and we must include that significant point of view. Are you saying we should cleanse out all mention of militia rights from this article!?! If not, what are you saying? Or, is your problem based on a false assumption that I deny the court precedence establishing an protection of an individual right of self defense? Certainly, I see that Heller did establish recognize that right and established a protection, so maybe you are angry not at me but at an imaginary foe. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 19:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

First Heller did not establish that right, Heller upHELD that right. To SB -I ran across the following sentence by someone trying to understand the Sentence Amendment which may help you grasp the individual rights view. "A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed." I leave you to ponder the type of person who would take that language to be a limitation on Books to only those "well-schooled".71.184.184.238 (talk) 21:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

First, to clarify, I am not saying, implying or suggesting anything about militia related rights. To loosely paraphrase my statement, it is: it is now a fact, not an opinion, that an individual has the rights defined by the second amendment even if they are not in any militia. And my complaint is that you seem to be wanting that fact as just one of many opinions. North8000 (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand me. I fully acknowledge that in 2008 the SCOTUS recognized for the first time that there was an individual rights component to the Second Amendment. While that is a fact, there still is history prior to 2008, and there still is differing opinions about that history seen in reliable sourcing. We must fairly and neutrally give coverage to that history. Ditto for the law. Presently, the only law that changed since Heller is in the District of Columbia. In Chicago, the law hasn't yet changed, but it has been remanded to the 7th Circuit for reconsideration based on the new holding of incorporation. Time will tell exactly what the 7th chooses to do. Let's watch what happens, let's not WP:CRYSTAL, and let's fairly write here what we read in the sourcing about both the law and the history. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 21:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I may have misunderstood you, but it certainly sounded like you were saying it should be covered that way.

The salient items of the Heller decision were it's finding (going from memory) that it also grants an individual right, that the preface does not affect the operative clause, and a few other findings. and the salient finding of the McDonald decision was that the same rights apply in relation to state and local laws. Why on earth would we avoid covering those salient points while we await the fate of a local law in a local court? North8000 (talk) 22:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Your memory of Heller might be wrong. The finding (properly called the holding) of Heller was, I quote: "In sum, we hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense." It appears that your memory is improperly remembering the dicta as if it was the holding. Interpretations of dicta from court opinions are notoriously difficult, kind of like reading tea leaves. Different people see different things. You are recalling portions which you personally want to see. People of other POV's see other things they want to see, for instance the portion where the lower courts have seen the "presumptively lawful" dicta to mean that virtually every gun control law on the books has been deemed Constitutional under the Second Amendment. And answering your question, if Heller is any indication, the lower courts have ruled in Heller unanimously (over 80 cases so far, and still counting) that gun control is constitutional. "...this celebrated landmark decision (Heller) has had almost no effect on the constitutionality of gun control. To date, the federal courts have yet to invalidate a single gun control law for violating the Second Amendment right to bear arms, despite scores of cases." It is anybodies guess what will happen with the remanding of McDonald, but if Heller is any indication...well, let's wait and see. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 22:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The "presumptively lawful" is another of the 3-4 salient findings. Every Supreme court ruling is about a specific case or law. By your argument, the Roe v Wade article would say that it was just about setting one law aside, and leave out the coverage that it legalized abortion. North8000 (talk) 17:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between the scope of Roe v. Wade and DC v. Heller making your analogy wildly inappropriate. Two years of time and scores of court cases have tested whether Heller means the end of gun control and the verdict has been essentially unanimous. Heller has resulted in the strong and clear validation of gun control laws by the courts. The most striking gun control court case is Dick Heller's 2010 challenge, which failed After a Supreme Court Loss, Washington’s Gun Laws Pass Muster. Heller overturned a very narrow scope of gun law, that is: "lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense". Essentially nothing else, and there is no comparison what-so-ever to the scope of Roe v. Wade, if anything, it is the exact opposite. We are not seeing the legalization of guns, we are seeing the legalization of gun control. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 19:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Again - to SB- I would like information as to where this language originated: "Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities in protects are not limited to militia service". Above you posted it as Supreme Court language. It does not appear in Heller. Where does it appear?7 Failure to respond will be taken to mean that you "manufactured" it. In other words "you see things that other people don't see - imaginary things"! 71.184.184.238 (talk) 23:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed it. I wrote that Heller affirmed Parker v. District of Columbia 478 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007). Parker is presently binding court precedent. The quoted language comes from Parker. That said, it seems plainly obvious that the courts have not invalidated the militia based component of the right. (For that reason, among others, this article should give thorough coverage to the militia based history of the 2A.) The SCOTUS have added an individual component to the protection of the right, effective 2008, for a "lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense". They did not delete protection of the militia based component of the right. Neither did they add protection of "any gun, anybody, any where"; instead they emphatically reaffirmed that prohibitions of such as being "presumptively lawful". The SCOTUS declared in effect[8] that essentially every gun control law short of banning a "lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense" remains to be Constitutional. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 15:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Please post a link to that ruling. As you "quoted it" you should know where it can be found.71.184.184.238 (talk) 15:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Never mind! Found it myself, and I also found out you twisted the meaning by leaving out the last part of that quote. http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/parkerdc030907.pdf The complete quote is "Despite the importance of the Second Amendment’s civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual’s enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia." Peddle your POV somewhere else.71.184.184.238 (talk) 15:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The language you cite does not appear anywhere in Heller. http://supreme.justia.com/us/554/07-290/opinion.html71.184.184.238 (talk) 17:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

to SB- I would like a reference as to where this language originated: "Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities in protects are not limited to militia service". Above you posted it as Supreme Court language. It does not appear in Heller. Where does it appear?71.184.184.238 (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

An auxiliary right is not a natural right, which should be obvious. Please provide a source that says otherwise. TFD (talk) 19:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The right of self-preservation and the right to self-defense are the same. Blackstone said :The fifth and last auxiliary right ... is that of having arms for their defence,... Which is also declared by the same statute ... and is indeed a public allowance ... of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation.71.184.184.238 (talk) 19:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Stearns1.htm REPRESENTATIVE CLIFF STEARNS - Not only is the right to be armed a Constitutional right, it is also a fundamental natural right. Today and throughout history, civilian disarmament is a crucial step toward oppression.71.184.184.238 (talk) 20:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Cliff Stearns is not a legal authority, he was an aerospace engineer. Self-defence and self-preservation are of course natural rights, but keeping arms is an auxiliary right, which is why Blackstone lists it with auxiliary rights not natural rights. Please provide a reliable source that says the right to keep and bear arms is a natural right. P. S., please look up the word "auxiliary". TFD (talk) 21:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The NH Constitution Article 2-a lists it as a natural right.71.184.184.238 (talk) 22:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

http://www.davekopel.com/2a/lawrev/commun1.htm David B. Kopel refers to it as a natural right - The natural right to arms had the purpose of facilitating resistance to both criminal governments and individual criminals.

http://gunowners.org/op0834.htm Brent Allan Winters also refers to it as a natural right - Indeed, the Second Amendment was theirs: they knew its meaning, had suffered long to earn its passage, and tolerated nothing less than each person's natural right to arms and private discipline in their use. Thus, without a hint of objection, they added the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

https://www.cato.org/pubs/scr/2008/Heller_Neily.pdf Clark Neily - references Malcolm who was used extensively by the Supreme Court - Professor Malcolm’s book To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origin of an English-American Right has been a key resource in the debate over the meaning of the Second Amendment because it documents the right of armed self-defense in England and explains how that right influenced the Framers’ conception of the natural right to arms they codified in the Second Amendment.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/554/07-290/opinion.html The US Supreme Court in Heller cites Revolutionary era sources which state that it is a natural right - And, of course, what the Stuarts had tried to do to their political enemies, George III had tried to do to the colonists. In the tumultuous decades of the 1760’s and 1770’s, the Crown began to disarm the inhabitants of the most rebellious areas. That provoked polemical reactions by Americans invoking their rights as Englishmen to keep arms. A New York article of April 1769 said that “[i]t is a natural right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defence.” A Journal of the Times: Mar. 17, New York Journal, Supp. 1, Apr. 13, 1769, in Boston Under Military Rule 79 (O. Dickerson ed. 1936); see also, e.g., Shippen, Boston Gazette, Jan. 30, 1769, in 1 The Writings of Samuel Adams 299 (H. Cushing ed. 1968).71.184.184.238 (talk) 23:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

You are searching through obscure sources to find trivial references. Try a law textbook or a court judgment. No the revolutionaries did not think it was a natural right, because they were competent in the law. TFD (talk) 05:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

You somehow missed that Heller WAS a Court judgment.71.184.184.238 (talk) 11:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

This whole discussion is skirting an important issue. Even if there is demonstrated to be a natural right to have guns, the mere existence of the right is not proof that this is the same right protected by the Second Amendment. There are thousands of rights not protected by the Second Amendment. Perhaps this right is protected by the Tenth Amendment? We should reduce the speculation here. Let's look to what the third party reliable sourcing says, and write what we see into the article. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 15:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The US Supreme Court stated that the Second protects an individual right unconnected with service in a militia. 71.184.184.238 (talk) 15:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe that vagary is the problem. The 2A protects an individual right, but which? (Answer: See the holding of Heller.) You are speaking of a different right. Show that the right you are speaking of is the same individual right the SCOTUS is speaking of. (And use secondary sourcing.) You have not shown this yet. And, you asserted above that the SCOTUS is speaking of the New Hampsire right. Really? Prove this please. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 15:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps SCOTUS was speaking about the right to keep and bear arms up your nose, in your mouth or even up your ass, but somehow I don't think so!- (And use secondary sourcing.) NO! Peddle your POV somewhere else.71.184.184.238 (talk) 17:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

TN Constitution and RKBA

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

"That the citizens of this state have a right

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

wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed edit to Introduction

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

I would rather say it protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms", which is the wording of the amendment. Because there are different interpretations of what the amendment means, we would have to qualify any other definition. Also, the expression "prevented the Federal government from changing the law" is ambiguous". TFD (talk) 19:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

How about: prohibits federal, state or local abridgment of an individuals right to keep and bear arms"71.184.184.238 (talk) 19:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

That's basically my proposed edit and it reflects the recent ruling in McDonald v. Chicago. I have no objection to the word "individual" be added. SMP0328. (talk) 19:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good, accurate, and up to date. North8000 (talk) 19:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

We would have to say "has been interpreted by the U. S. Supreme Court". Neutrality "requires that all majority views and significant minority views published by reliable sources be presented fairly". TFD (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Please propose language that you would support.71.184.184.238 (talk) 20:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

How about this: The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the Second Amendment to prohibit any federal, state or local abridgment of the right to keep and bear arms. SMP0328. (talk) 20:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

How about, "The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms". The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted this right to be an individual right which cannot be restricted by federal, state or local government." TFD (talk) 21:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Now how do we get that put into the Introduction? SMP0328. (talk) 22:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I can live with the last version above but think that "ruled" would be better then "interpreted". "The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms". The U.S. Supreme Court has RULED this right to be an individual right which cannot be restricted by federal, state or local governments." 71.184.184.238 (talk) 10:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I like "ruled", although, like the anon, I have no objection to "interpreted". The only issue left to be decided is if one editor is entitled to a veto over this proposed edit. SMP0328. (talk) 16:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

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

What if the word "individual" was removed? SMP0328. (talk) 01:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that the only thing that McDonald has done at this point is to remand to the 7th Circuit to resolve the conflict. To say much more until the 7th Circuit Court makes a ruling would be WP:CRYSTAL. We need to see what the 7th Circuit says. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 02:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The Court in McDonald said that the Second Amendment was incorporated. The remand was for the Seventh Circuit to rule on whether Chicago's gun ban violated Heller. I'm not asking for anyone to predict the future. I'm requesting the Introduction be changed to reflect that the Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment applies to the States via the Fourteenth Amendment. SMP0328. (talk) 02:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The decision of McDonald v. Chicago was that the fourteenth amendment applied to the second amendment. Saltboatr, do you have a good source that summarizes the decision of DC v Heller? We need to see that the RS that it considers gun laws to be "presumptively lawful" but we also need to explain what it says about the right. TFD (talk) 02:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I recommend reading this article[9] in the UCLA Law Review which describes the experience in federal courts of the court cases that have been ruled upon in the post-Heller time period. It describes that a common thread in most of the rulings is the focus on the "presumtively lawful" words from Heller. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 21:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

1.1 Why do you want the current wording to be changed? --Hauskalainen (talk) 02:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

1.2 On what grounds do you want it to embrace the States or sub-entities of the States?--Hauskalainen (talk) 02:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

(Surely the States can change the law. A Constitution is merely a founding document for any entity and sets out what the entity can and cannot do. In the case the entity was "The United States of America" embodied in 3 different entities, the Congress, the Presidency and the Federal Courts and it said that the Federal government could not infringe (=interfere in) the rights of the people in the states to have guns. SCOTUS has determined that it was an individual right that the 2nd Amendment was referring to, but this was NOT the grant of a NEW right. The right (at the time of the writing of the 2nd Amendment) was an existing right in common law and it could be legally changed, by consent of the people, but only through their representatives in the States and not by the Federal government.) --Hauskalainen (talk) 02:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The Constitution can only be legally changed via the amendment process. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment applies to State and local governments to the same extent as it applies to the federal government. So now the right to keep and bear arms can not be changed by the States any more than it can be by the federal government. I want the Introduction to reflect this fact. SMP0328. (talk) 17:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

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

2.1 Why do you think that the phrase "prevented the Federal government from changing the law" is ambiguous?--Hauskalainen (talk) 02:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

2.2 Why do you think that "it protects the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" would NOT need any qualification?--Hauskalainen (talk) 02:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

(the Second Amendment was giving a direct statement to the Federal powers that its powers did not extend to the infringement of the rights of the people to bear arms. The "protection" was only against infringement by the Federal Government. The powers of the States are laid down in their own constitutions and many I presume will have wide powers to set limits on the right to bear arms and have surely have used that power many times to set out licensing and carry rules for example.) --Hauskalainen (talk) 02:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

2.1 Because a) it is the legislative branch of government that changes the laws (usually government applies to the executive branch) and it is not clear what law it is prevented from changing: does it mean no change may be made to the D. C. handgun law?

We could change it to say "prevented the United States Congress from passing any law that could limit the rights of a person to have arms." That is the effect of the Second Amendment is it not? It did not give any postive rights, only the negative one of not having any existing arms rights removed by the Federal government - presumably the U.S. Congress and the presidency combined.--Hauskalainen (talk) 13:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

2.2 The writers of the Bill of Rights thought it needed no qualification. (The McDonald case makes it clear that the amendment restricts the power of state and local governments as well.)

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

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

3.1 Where did the SCOTUS say the right cannot be restricted by State government?--Hauskalainen (talk) 02:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

3.1 See McDonald. TFD (talk) 04:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

McDonald:

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

Heller:

• That the 2nd grants an individual right (in addition to any group right)

Protects! not grants.71.184.184.238 (talk) 12:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• That the operative clause of the 2nd is not affected by the preamble
• That some types of gun laws are permissible, and, importantly, the examples that it gave. Not that the examples are a part of the operative clause, but they are certainly indicative and influential.

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

I suggest we change the introductory sentence back to the last stable version (prior to the latest flurry of edits). The stable version of the introductory sentence is: "The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects a right to keep and bear arms.[1] " (last week[http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&oldid=371476979) the same as December 2009[http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&oldid=333881083, six months stable). The version in place was not placed there by consensus, where the stable version was agreed by consensus. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 20:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

This is one of the rare moments that I agree with Salty. The current 1st sentence is badly written, and the one Salty is suggesting is well written. North8000 (talk) 20:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I would rather have the version discussed above, instead of the current version or the old version. 71.184.184.238 (talk) 21:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the earlier version. Please continue to discuss the proposed new version and request an edit if consensus develops. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

English History: Connection between the English and American Bill of Rights re right to arms

(I have pulled this back from Archive. We may need this for review purpose)--Hauskalainen (talk) 23:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Salty keeps wanting to argue that the connection between the two is disputed, but this is clearly not so. Everyone that I have read points to the connections which are both connected in historical time and subject (even though the wording differs). It is totally disingenuous of him to claim that this is "disputed" when he points to a reference which merely refers to the relevance. Sure, they are not relevant to one another. One was setting a constitutional right in one country (USA) and the other was not. One was specifically related to the use in the Militia (USA) whereas the other was a confirmation of a personal right (UK). But they ARE undoubtedly related to each other. The Supreme Court of the United States recognized this and even extended the personal right to American citizens of the District of Columbia arguing that this was the intention of the English and therefore the intention of the Americans. I find it incredulous that Salty wants to diregard this clear statement of the highest court in the United States.

In the past I have noticed this editor working as am "opposer" of pro "second amendement rights" supporters but at the time I thought that this was a sham (with the editor working to give the impression that the article was being edited by a group of editors of opposing opinions when in reality he was not). Clearly his recent edits have been aimed at preserving a sham argument that had begun in this section that had tried to spin the argument that

1. English citizens originally had no rights to arms
2. That some only got the right through the Assize of Arms
3. That the right was then won to all protestants in England and that finally
4. It was America that granted the right to EVERY citizen

Well I am sorry but that is not at all the history regarding the right to arms in England or America. The correct sequence is

1. ALL English citizens originally had EVERY rights to bear arms
2. SOME got an OBLIGATION to do so through the Assize of Arms
3. Parliament tried (and failed in the long run) to preserve the right only to protestants
4. Americans made their rights constitutional in an unclear way (tho the Supreme Court has ruled that the right is a personal one not restricted to military duty)
5. The English STILL have the right to bear arms but have restricted the rights to bear certain arms on grounds of public safety
6. The Americans are still tied in knots about whether the right is personal and to what degree the States can modify it (clearly some States have already modified it and this has been agreed by the Supreme Court as lawful) and how the constitutional right to arms the affects particular types of arms (rifles, pistols, nerve gasses*, nuclear weapons*).

• - ok I made this up, but maybe you'll be clever enough get my point. --Hauskalainen (talk) 21:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Once again, not interested in your WP:NOR personal opinion inappropriately given here on this article talk page, see WP:TALK for guidelines. We must be both neutral, and verifiable. My edit, which you reverted was sourced to the highly influential[10] 1995 Garry Wills article in the New York Review of Books V42 N 18. Have you read it? If not, please do so and let's discuss what it says. Wills writes, speaking of the English Bill of Rights, "it is irrelevant". Do you dispute that this Garry Wills article is a reliable source? Do you dispute that it should be included for the sake of neutrality? If you do dispute, please say so. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 22:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyone saying the colonists were "granted" the right to arms is smoking something. I added a snippet from the historians brief, showing that even the pro gun control group recognizes that Pennsylvania refused to organize a militia, even during wartime, and upon petition, by these in danger.96.237.120.38 (talk) 23:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Salty, you are muddying the waters. The issue I have IS NOT that Wills may have argued that the English law is not relevant to American law, but to the claim that you made in the text that they are not connected. Their relationship is well established and I doubt (though I cannot prove it as I don't have ready access to the text) that Wills would claim that the two texts so close together historically and written by men well versed in English law would not have had the English Bill of Rights when drafting the American Bill of Rights. That the wording is slightly different, that they apply in different jurisdictions, and even are in different kinds of legal texts clearly makes the RELEVANCE of one in the context of the other highly dubious (though the Supreme Court in the U.S. has had to look to the English Law when trying to puzzle out what the drafters of the American Law really meant by the words therein). The edit I deleted was your conflation of the words irrelevant and connected. They do not mean the same thing. Of course I am willing to be proved wrong if you can show substantively with a quote from the source you cite that Wills does NOT believe that the drafters of the American Bill of Rights had in mind the contents of the English Bill of Rights when they wrote what they did. Of you can show this, let's have it.--Hauskalainen (talk) 00:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Got it, the disagreement in the significant POV's which we see is about relevance. OK. One POV gives it a lot of relevance because it advances the theory of a personal right to arms. Another gives is no relevance because they believe that the 2A was about guaranteeing a militia based military system. The key issue for me is not that I agree or disagree with either of these POV's, but the key issue is that I want the article to reflect both POV's. I am guessing that you personally want the article to reflect your personal POV. Please stop doing that. Read WP:NPOV policy, and comply. Thanks. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 02:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

With respect, you STILL haven't got it. We do not have a disagreement about "relevance" but about your presentation of the issues of "connection" (e.g. this diff. http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=366855674&oldid=366848416) and its muddling with "relevance" (e.g. this diff. http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=366629458&oldid=366627427 which says this (enhancements are mine)...

Some scholars, like Joyce Lee Malcolm believe that the Second Amendment is a variation of text in the English Bill of Rights of 1689...(o)ther scholars, like Garry Wills, believe that the English Bill of Rights is largely irrelevant to the Second Amendment because...

When you begin one sentence with "Some believe" and the mext sentence with "Others believe", the topic of their beliefs must the the same. Your presentation was entirely unacceptable. The issue that you make (that the relevance is disputed) may be so - but at least present it fairly and do not make it seem unchallengeable by accusing me of inserting POV (which you have done in edit summary after edit summary and have done so again above). I hold NO POV on the matter. The text I had written which you deleted DID in fact say that the relevance was disputed (because you clearly wanted the article to say this). Mine was a fair representation. Yours is a total muddying.

But now I am now beginning to doubt whether the issue of "relevance" is even worth mentioning here. A dispute over relvance (if ever there was one) can clearly be shown to have been settled because the United States Supreme recently in Heller had to refer back to look at both the English Bill of Rights and the American Bill of Rights to try to understand what was in the minds of the drafters of the US Bill of Rights (because the words in a modern context may not be seen in the same way as the drafters saw it then). The minutiae of arguments before the Supreme Court may be of interest to those interested in the arguments of academics and lawyers before this decision, and may even be relevant as content in the Wikipedia article on that case, but the matter is now surely settled. Going over old arguments like this is just distracting for the reader.--Hauskalainen (talk) 16:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

No. The court majority opinion in Heller did not eliminate the fact that there are different POV's. Regardless of what the Supreme Court opinion might be, we must represent all significant POV's. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet}

The article as it was did state that there was a difference of opinion regarding the reference to militias and the matter is adequately handled elsewhere in the section and in the article. There is NO JUSTIFICATION for this blatant ignorance of the main issue which is your muddying of the issue of the relation of one law to the other and the issue of the relevance of one law to the other. These are different issues and should not be dealy with by trying to link the issues. You are clearly trying to mislead the reader. I think you should desist or I will submit a complaint to an Administrator for disruptive behavior.--Hauskalainen (talk) 19:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the issue of the importance of the English Bill of Rights, or not, reflects that there is more than one point of view. Did you read the Garry Wills article? It describes a significant point of view which you personally may disagree. Still, our job here is to write an article that includes both the points of view that we personally agree with, and also the significant points of view that may personally disagree. We must include all significant points of view, and you cannot simply keep deleting significant points of view because you personally disagree with them. Understand? If not, please read this: WP:NPOV, thanks. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 20:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

(Outdent). Answer the accusation! You conflated two issues - origin of the text and the importance of the earlier text to American law. It matters not whether I have read or not read the reference. This is a matter of presentation. By all means include the reference and by all means lets hear a direct quote. But do NOT mix up the matter of origin with relevance. They are two different things.

I am not pushing a POV as you have accused me of doing multiple times today. If you seriously believe that I would sure like to know what that POV is.

There is a cabal of editors at work on this article, which I accuse you of being one, who seem hell bent on selling the little story I outlined above which is UNDOUBTEDLY a false one.

This Cabal wants us to believe the following myths

Myth Number 1. Englishmen originally had no rights to arms and could only bear them in support of the King

Myth Number 2. They started of as peasants in some form of slavery, and by the sword and later by the gun, they came eventually to kill their king, declare a republic, and later resume the monarchy only to have to oust him in a coup and finally get the new monarch to concede the right of the majority of them (the protestants) to have arms for their defense.

Myth Number 3. Americans shared this history but in making their constitution added the same rights but not restricting it to the protestants but to the militia in order for them to preserce their local States.

Myth Number 4. Parliament has slowly but surely eroded the right of the people to have guns because parliament keeps passing legislation making it more and more difficult to get them legally.

Myth Number 5. Americans in comparison, and in particular a brave cabal of people seeking to protect their second amendment rights, are determined not to let this happen lest a future government gets too big and powerful and tries to disarm them. The majority of this article is dedicated to this struggle.

Myth Number 1 is false because Englishmen have ALWAYS had the right to arms for self defense. This right has always been subject to the law of the land and in particular as to whether they were suitable for that use. The law of the land has fluctuated, sometimes controlling the type of arms and sometimes controlling the persons permitted to use them.

Myth Number 2 is false because even peasants had a right to bear arms. Freemen were OBLIGED to do so. The English Bill of Rights in relation to arms created no new rights nor removed any. Nothing changed. It was an affirmation of an existing right but affirmed with the explicit mention of protestants rights (hardly surprising given the reasons for the coup that had just taken place). But this did NOT constitute any religious discrimination BECAUSE NOTHING CHANGED.

Myth Number 3 is wrong because it is founded on Myths 1 and 2. The fact is that Americans had the right to bear arms BEFORE the passing of the American Bill of Rights for the same reason their Englsih cousins did. It did though couch this in terms of the military (again hardly surprising given that they had just broken away from a state that had tried to disarm them and were about to create a new superstate which might one day try to do the same thing). The Heller decision confirms this.

Myth Number 4 is a myth because it implies that the consent of the people has not been obtained. All rights come from law and the law changes according to the will of the people through their elected representatives. The rights of the people are actually strngthened because they are free to go about their daily business generally without the fear of being shot. (And yes, there are exceptions, some of them recent, but each time it happens there are calls to re-examine the law).

Myth Number 5 is a myth because, as in England, there are also large numbers of people who disagree with the idea that there should be an unfettered right to bear certain types of highly lethal weapons. They believe that ready access to weapons leads to their illegal use and that in balancing the rights of legal users of legal weapons against the risk of those legal weapons being used illegally (as happened recently in Cumbria England) it is reasonable to make these weapons hard to obtain. The fact that the right is constitutional in America but not in Britain means that those in America seeking to curb gun use face a huge hurdle because the constitution is hard to change. Bit not impossible. This is why SAF fights so hard to preserve it.

Now actually myth 5 is getting into POV and may be fairly represented in the article (I don't know because I have not read it - I am only interested in a fair presentation of the English Law as it relates to the creation of the second amendment). I am concerned that the article originally presented the history as though Myths 1-4 were true. I have tried to change that and now there is a concerted effort to prevent the truth from being told. If this dispute continues much longer I will take the matter to arbitration.

Alternatively, we could discuss the matter here and try to come to a common presentation that fairly represents both sides (the myths as I have called them and the evidence for and against). But we can only do this in a way that makes it easy for the reader to read. If it gets too complex then it is not worth us trying and we shall have to leave it to arbiters to help us find a way forward. --Hauskalainen (talk) 23:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not interested in engaging in a discussion of your personal theory and assertions. Please do not take article talk page space for that purpose. Please rephrase your concerns by pointing to explicitly to WP:Policy and by citing specific reliable third party sourcing. Thanks. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 00:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary. The article talk page is absolutely the right page to have this out. This is what it is for. We have to address the issue that the clique has tried to present this view of history and Wikipedia is not here simply to present a one side view let alone a cranky one. The sad truth is that.

The article must present the facts of history and the facts of law and what's more it should give them greater prominence than that opinion or the other opinion which may or may not have been held in the past. What I am trying to do is to engage you in that process of shaping the article for the better. A review of what has happened in the recent edits that you in particular have made is to destroy or discredit any attempt to show the true path of history and true judgments in law and try to scupper them by attaching them to POV positions one way or the other, or try to pretend that someone's point of view (about the relevance of the English Bill of Rights to the Second Amendment) can be balanced against an overwhelming weight of evidence on a different topic altogether (the historical relation between the two). The two things are not related and cannot be "balanced" like this. I am offering you the chance to back off and think about the implications. If this goes to arbitration I am fairly sure you will lose. I would think it better for you and your mob to concede on this point on the run up to the creation of the Second Amendment. You can argue all you like which other (which is what your cabal does) about the law and history subsequently. But your misrepresentation of English History and the law in England regarding the right to arms is not something that really should stand. The story is as I have told it is the correct one and the myths as they had been put in the article ought not to be allowed to stand.--Hauskalainen (talk) 02:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me make a suggestion that we concentrate first on the shape of the English history section. I have made a start on getting rid of the myths by getting rid of the chronological order. This forced the narrative along the lines of making it give the impression that the right to weapons was a struggle culminating in the Bill of Rights. This is a false impression. The connection between the American Bill of Rights and English history is obviously the English Bill of Rights. There are similarities and there are differences. To understand those you have to look back in time because the drafters had their own histories and historic rights in mind when drafting the texts in the way they did.

I am going to suggest that we structure the explanatory text around the fundamental narrative as I have spelled it out (i.e. that that the English right is ancient, was always subject to appropriateness and legal constraint, was re-affirmed in the Bill of Rights and not granted as a new right). We need to do this as part of the narrative explaining the similarities and the differences between the texts.

1. We should begin with the English text and its affirmation of long held natural rights or common law rights.
2. We need to show how the Civil War had led to bad nerves on both sides leading to periodic diarmaments which may (or may not, according to your view) have been unlawful.
3. We need to show why Parliament after the Glorious revolution even bothered to put into an act something which was already the law of the land.
4. We need to examine the significance (if any) of the wording relating to protestants
5. We should explain what is meant in the English text of "suitable as to their cndition" and
6. Also what is meant by "as allowed by law" (or whatever the actual phrasing was).
7. We need to identify what in the American text is the same as the English text
8. We need to explain what is different - including
9. Why the American text refers to Militias (perhaps including the obligations on militias in both countries) and
10. Why the Supreme Court argued that the clause is not restrictive to Militias and finally
11. We need to show why, when both countries have so similar laws, the countries positions with regard to arms seem so very different (ie constiutionality versus implied repeal by Parliament)

That's my suggestion for going forward. It seems to me much more logical to work from this basis.--Hauskalainen (talk) 02:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Tö: SaltyBoatr: Why did you add this http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=371540540&oldid=371539403 knowing that the position you are stating (that the right to bear arms flows from a military tradtion - the view of recent American revisionist historians) which is entirely contentious when the long held historic position, which was certainly the view in the 17th century and as far as we know still is by mainstream English historians, is that the right to bear arms DOES NOT flow from a military tradition but as an auxillary right of self preservation to the absolute right to life? This action is was bound to create a reaction, given all that we have said here in these pages. That you should deem that I have begun to "edit war" after YOU made this statement is beyond belief. Your actions are intolerable!--Hauskalainen (talk) 07:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The reason I made that edit is that per Wikipedia policy we are required to fairly represent all significant points of view seen in reliable sourcing. My edit[11] to that paragraph was an attempt to correct defects in the wording where one of the points of view is represented as "fact" and the other points of view which we see in the sourcing are omitted. The wording I inserted was an attempt to use neutral wording which fairly represented without bias that there are multiple points of view seen in the reliable sourcing on this topic. Did I answer your question? Now, would you answer mine please: You write that my "actions are intolerable!" Why do you say this? Because my actions seem to be in accordance with the policy here of maintaining a "neutral point of view". What basis are you using when you say "intolerable"? Is this because of your "opposition to myth" belief's explained[12] on June 9th? Would you please answer my questions? Thanks. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 15:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Salty says that he made the change to present a significant point of view that he claims was missing from the article. Well just ten minutes before he made his edit the article said this

The right to arms in English history is believed to have been regarded as a long established right in English Law, auxiliary to the natural right to life. One American historian has expressed a contrary view that the right developed slowly over a period of 500 or so years beginning in the twelfth century and peaking in the seventeenth.

which clearly has the long established view about the right to arms being auxilliary to right to life and then reference to an alterative view (not stated to be recent, though it is) that instead of the right being an ancient one, it developed slowly over 500 years and peaking in the seventeeth century Second Amendment (in Amercia). This is clearly a neutral statement which reflects both POVs.

Ten minutes later, after your edit and an intervening IP editor edit it read

The right to have arms and the right to bear arms in English history is believed to have been regarded as a long established right in English Law, auxiliary to the natural right to life and flowing from a long English tradition of militia service. The right to have arms is also referred to in the English Bill of Rights which protected the right against its being withdrawn by the King without the consent of Parliament.

All reference to the fact that the developing right theory is novel and held by only a few has gone. The "flowing from a long tradition of military service" claim is highly POV and not acceptable without it being in the context of the revisionist developing rights theory. If you were genuinely trying to have Malcolm's views represented you would have challenged the IP editor, added the references and the names of other supporters of this theory, But you did not. Instead you went back to the BIG LIE.--Hauskalainen (talk) 23:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Hitler you used to tell some BIG LIES and he got away with it because people were too scared to challenge them. As with the Nazis, the bigger the lie the better as long and as it is repeated loudly and often enough it will be accepted. Your actions are aimed at abusing Wikipedia to spread a big lie. THE BIG LIE being that the right to have arms was a slowly developing one coming from the duty to form militias. (This is what the gun lobby wants people in the United States to believe). And with it some corollary lies. That the Founding Fathers were granting a new right to arms. (They were not; the right to arms already existed). That the right to arms peaked when the Second Amendment was written. (It did not - the right to arms was ancient and has been under threat ever since modern governments began to recognize that people with arms are potentially a force for evil in the world as well as a force for good).--Hauskalainen (talk) 23:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

you are actually talking about the position of the ANTI-gun lobby. The gun lobby thinks the more guns available to the public the more honest we can keep the politicians. The hard core gun crowd is already stating that if the politicians show up to take their guns and ammo, they will be happy to comply by giving them the ammo first. There is no question in my mind that that the political establishment has built up a reserve of hatred among the population that is hard to believe. My guess is that we either have a revolt in the US in the next 10 years, or we end up under some sort of fascist or socialist dictatorship.71.184.184.238 (talk) 01:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

If I may answer this one, your actions are intolerable because you edit this article not to make it better but to PUSH your discredited POV. Answer my question below. Why did you remove "in support of the militia" as a reason for the creation of the Second and replaced it with "slave control". The reason you deleted ""in support of the militia" is one of the major reasons why the Founding Fathers enacted it, while "slave control" amounts to the ramblings of a disgruntle Joyce employee, pimping his employers gun control bull.71.184.184.238 (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It's perfectly fine to disagree with SaltyBoatr and challenge his assertions, but please remember to be WP:CIVIL. These personal attacks are unwarranted. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 19:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

No. They ARE warranted. This is not a matter of POV balancing as Salty would have you believe but a deliberate attempt by him to change the perceived view history of arms in the United Kingdom. He is putting in a POV position that we have argued over for weeks and which clearly is novel and not the mainstream view. Re-writing English history to say that everything you thought was true is actually false is no small matter. And not standing up to it will have consequences just as the failure to stand up to the excesses of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot all had consequences. Salty is complicit in the mistelling of history. Joyce Lee Malcolm's book, which carries this revisionist history, is referenced from time to time by the Supreme Court in decisions about gun laws and gun rights. The degree of revisionism in this book has not received the attention it deserves.(Yes that last statement is POV but this is TALK). If people cannot stand up and say how revisionist this book really is, and worse, to pretend as Salty does that it represents an unchallened truth is to be complicit in the telling of an historical big lie. The gun lobby in the United States would have you believe that arms controls in England have failed and that violent crime is rife there. In England and Wales (which has a population one sixth of the United States) the death toll from gun crime is a worrying 50-100 deaths annually. In America it is about 9000 or so, or two 9/11s a year. Big lies matter because they have big consequences. --Hauskalainen (talk) 00:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much everyone here is aware that Salty is pushing his POV and cares little for the article itself. Witness the fact that the article is frozen just when it needs to be updated based on the recent McDonald Supreme Court ruling. Guess who got it frozen. Salty! Guess who was the only one engaged in a 3RR violation at the time? Salty! Guess who shifted the blame to me and Hauskalainen as the cause of that edit war? Did you guess Salty before you got this far? If not then yes it was Salty! and lets not forget that the article was previously frozen because of an edit war with Guess who? as one of the guilty parties. Yup! Salty! and now guess what he filed a disruptive editing complaint against me to muddy up his involvement in an edit war. Yup! Salty! http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Second_Amendment_long_term_AnonIP_disruption.71.184.184.238 (talk) 21:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

If you have problems with my editing behavior, take it up at the relevant noticeboard. This article talk page is not the place to discuss the behavior of other editors. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 23:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

As you wish! Your next 3rr gets reported.71.184.184.238 (talk) 01:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Ancient English history of the US Second Amendment

For more than a month now, an ongoing dispute over sourcing requirements and neutrality concerns regarding the ancient English History of the US Second Amendment resulting in article lock down. Requesting outside help resolving this question and bring this dispute to resolution. Thanks. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 14:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Salty, Can you include a brief/concise description/summary of what the debate revolves around? NickCT (talk) 20:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

From my perspective, this[13] talk page section captures the nature of this dispute pretty well. Hauskalainen and the AnonIP have opinions about a common law origin of the Second Amendment. This opinion appears to be entirely their original research. My repeated requests to be able verify their opinion by reading confirmation in reliable secondary sourcing have not been answered. Both of these guys feel very strongly that their opinion is "truth" and that any other opinion is "myth". The trouble I see is that a book written by Joyce Lee Malcolm published by Harvard University Press (To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0674893077) says quite clearly otherwise. She argues that the Second Amendment codifies a "right" that originated in 1689 with the English Bill of Rights. That 1689 document marked a milestone when the duty to serve in a militia changed for the first time into a "right" to have arms. And, I am open to the likelihood that this point of view expressed by Professor Malcolm is just one of the significant points of views. We are stuck on the problem that Hauskalainen and the AnonIP really have been unable to cite any third party reliable sourcing that verifies their strongly held personal opinions. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 20:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm.... the discussion sounds complex. Can you point a specific piece of content or proposed content that is under debate. Unfortunately the talk page above presents an intimidating read. Offering a summary or a piece of content under debate might help in getting more response to this RfC. NickCT (talk) 20:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the 50,000 words of talk page above, (and that isn't even counting what has been archived!) This dispute centers on Hauskalainen's opinion that the previous stable version of the English History section seen here[14] contains "myth". Hauskalainen prefers this[15] version. To support his assertion of "myth" he makes arguments, seen many places above, but perhaps are most concisely seen here[16] where he makes a presentation of his original research. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 21:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The main issue is whether or not there was a right under English common law to keep and bear arms before the Bill of Rights 1689. The only reliable source provided was To Keep and Bear Arms (1996), which states that there was not. Hauskalainen and others are unable to provide any contemporary secondary sources that the right existed and insist on using primary sources like Blackstone's Commentaries (1765-1769), and modern legal cases. My position is that they must find a reliable contemporary book of legal scholarship that claims the right existed or accept the scholarship that says it did not. While I do not know whether the right existed, I am opposed to including unsourced material. All of the arguments by Hauskalainen above are original research from primary documents. TFD (talk) 21:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

To quibble a bit, the last stable version of this English History section[17] was sourced to several reliable books and the Encyclopedia Britanica, so it is not exactly accurate to say "the only reliable source was To Keep and Bear Arms (1996)". Though, that book alone is of very high quality and states very strongly that the right to bear arms evolved from what had previously been a duty to bear arms in 1689. Also, that book is cited by hundreds other books[18], confirming its weight as a WP:RS. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 22:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected. TFD (talk) 23:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Every reputable source states that the Second Amendment protects a pre-existing right. In the same manner, the English Bill of Rights also protects a pre-existing right that had come into danger due to the actions of a Catholic King (James II) who disarmed his Protestant opponents while arming Catholic supporters. The people finding his actions contrary to their well being revolted, tossed him out and replaced him. As a result of his attempted disarming, the English codified their rights into the Bill of Rights of 1689. As a rule Bills of Rights protect pre-existing rights, they don't "create" rights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.120.38 (talk) 11:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Point of fact, "every" source does not agree about protecting pre-existing rights in 1689. The book Gun violence in America: the struggle for control by Alexander DeConde, Publisher: Northeastern University Press, 2001 ISBN 9781555534868 pages 13-14 examines the English Bill of Rights of 1689 and views that it was fundamentally a law designed to keep weapons out of the hands of undesirable people (Catholics) and as such it was not really a protection of a pre-existing right as it was an early example of a gun control law. Certainly that is not the universal POV about this, but it is one significant POV about this that disagrees with AnonIP. Our duty is to fairly represent all significant POV's, even those we personally may disagree. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 15:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Point of fact AGAIN: Every reputable source states that the Second Amendment protects a pre-existing right.96.237.120.38 (talk) 18:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Well this debate seems rather indepth and it would probably take a while to offer an opinion that was worth much. My initial impression is this; isn't this debate a little esoteric to be having here? It seems to me that this topic is only partially notable in the context of the second ammendment. I wonder if this debate might better take place in an article called 17th Century English Gun Rights or Historical basis for the 2nd Ammendment. This issue strikes me as being somewhat too scholarly to be of interest to the average Joe wikipedia user looking for information about the second ammendment. Has anyone considered summarizing and forking this section? NickCT (talk) 13:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Since the Second Amendment does not create a right but protects an existing right, the nature of that right is important to the article. Was the right it protects created by the Bill of Rights 1689 or did the right exist from time immemorial? What is the right that is protected? These issues are relevant to the article. TFD (talk) 14:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

This article is supposed to reflect what the reliable sources say about this topic. Looking at these sources, it is very common to see coverage of the origin of the "right to bear arms" being traced back into English history. Therefore, so should we.

The elephant in the room now is that the sources divide into two (or three) POV camps. One of the camps, favored by Hauskalainen, is that "the right to bear arms" is fundamentally a right of self protection, with ancient roots. Unfortunately, Hauskalainen neglects to use third party reliable sourcing to make his case. Another very major POV is that "the right to bear arms" is an individual right which evolved out of a tradition of militia duty, this described by Joyce Lee Malcolm in her famous book. A third POV is that in the era of the drafting of the Second Amendment in 1789, "the right to bear arms" was overwhelmingly considered to be a miltia based collective right, and this milita has fallen into disuse, see the Uviller and Merkel book. We have a duty to represent all significant points of view, and Hauskalainen insistence two of these significant POV's are "myth" and therefore must to be deleted from the article violates WP:NPOV policy. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 15:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Your second and third POV's are the same old tired militia based garbage created by the gun control groups. The US Supreme staked that POV through the heart in Heller and plainly stated that the right to arms was NOT based on militia duty. The right to arms is an individual right unconnected with the militia. 96.237.120.38 (talk) 18:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

@TFG - "These issues are relevant to the article" Things which are relevant to something are not always notable. Note in Third Amendment to the United States Constitution and First Amendment the "historical context" of the ammendments are either not addressed or touched on briefly. I would suggest this article should take the same direction.

SaltyBoatr - "This article is supposed to..." I'm sure you'd agree that the article is not meant to reflect what EVERY RS has to say on the issue. In my mind WP articles should give basic and concise background information regarding an article's title. The content under debate seems to go above and beyond "basic and concise". I'd still be for a WP:FORK. NickCT (talk) 16:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

All of the rights in the 1st and 3rd amendments were created by those amendments with one exception: the "right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances". These are covered under related articles, the Right to petition in the United States, which mentions the history of the right and the Freedom of Assembly, which does not. If these rights had been listed as separate Amendments then I would expect those articles to contain a history of those rights. However, it is not the history of the right that is notable but the nature of the right. Since the 2nd amendment protects an existing right, the nature of that right is important. That of course was the whole issue in the District of Columbia v. Heller. Whether or not the right to bear arms is an individual right depends on what right existed before the U. S. Bill of Rights. TFD (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely disagree with the above statement that the 1st and 3rd Amendments created rights. Freedom of religion was a basic principle in the colonies and was included in the Virginia Declaration of Rights and many (if not all) of the original state constitutions. The 3rd Amendment upheld the old English tradition that a mans home is his castle and not subject to invasion against the wishes of the homeowner. Look up "Castle Doctrine" to see how deeply embedded this principle is in US law.96.237.120.38 (talk) 18:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

@NickCT. Agreed, there has been a problem of with this English Section, both versions really[19][20] (but more with Hauskalainin's), over time the push-pull of POV battles has lead to bloating with excessive quotes of primary documents (from Blackstone and Tucker for instance) which seek to give emphasis to one favorite POV by implication. We should be able to concisely and fairly summarize the three major POVs, and move on. The trouble is that modern political pressure over the correct meaning of the 2A depends on the correct framing of the historical origins. Witness the extreme pressure here and now to frame it as being based on ancient self defense. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 17:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I again dispute the insinuation that Blackstone's Commentaries are primary documents.96.237.120.38 (talk) 18:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Then you should read WP:Primary sources. You might want to look up the meaning of insinuation too. TFD (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Blackstone was probably not even born when the English Bill of Rights was passed, and was most likely dead when the US Bill of Rights was created. He was therefore not an "insider" connected to either. Insinuate - force one's way into. Synonyms: curry favor, edge in, fill in, foist, get in with, horn in, infiltrate, infuse, ingratiate, inject, insert, instill, intercalate, interject, interpose, introduce, muscle in, slip in, wedge in, work in, worm in. I do believe that SB was attempting to foist, insert, muscle in his own pet belief on this matter. 96.237.120.38 (talk) 18:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Just so there is no confusion: Primary sources are very close to an event, often accounts written by people who are directly involved, offering an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on.96.237.120.38 (talk) 18:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I also dispute the continued and repeated attempts by SB to "frame" the Second Amendment question in a manner that would support his POV slant. ALL the Justices of the US Supreme Court have stated, in the opinion and in both dissents, that the right to arms is an "individual right". Most of those Justices have further stated that it is a pre-existing right unconnected with service in the militia.96.237.120.38 (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The issue is whether the right existed under common law. TFD (talk) 18:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The fact that the English were disgusted enough to revolt and depose a King, because he in part violated that right, indicates that THOSE English thought it was a right.96.237.120.38 (talk) 18:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

@Salty - re "The trouble.......... historical origins. " - I'd agree with this. But I don't think this article is the correct place to be having this debate. Surely we could come up with some suitably vague summary for this discussion (i.e. "Some historians have pointed to English common law as providing the basis for the second ammendment"), then forking to page like Historical Context for the Creation of 2nd Ammendment (or some other suitable title). NickCT (talk) 19:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: "The fact that the English were disgusted enough to revolt and depose a King..." Can you please stick to actual history. Re: Blackstone. Blackstone is a primary source for how the law was understood when he wrote the Commentaries. Of course he was born long after the Glorious Revolution and relied on Whig history for his interpretation of 1688. There are however scholars who have written about Blakcstone and these are secondary sources. NickCT: They do not see common law as providing the basis for the second amendment, but see the 2nd amendment as protecting a common law right. Notice the wording: "the right... shall not be infringed". TFD (talk) 19:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Blackstone is a SECONDARY source on law. He was not its author, and recorded the prevailing views on that law. That makes his a secondary source. RE: The fact that the English were disgusted enough to revolt and depose a King... Can you please stick to actual history. --- That the English revolted in disgust IS ACTUAL HISTORY!96.237.120.38 (talk) 20:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

@NickCT I couldn't agree more! When I said "the trouble is..." I was referring to the fact that this article has long been a magnet for advocacy editors and zealots who insist that the article's point of view must be "truth" as seen from their personal point of view. The flip side of that coin is that very few editors have the stomach to withstand the onslaught of advocacy editors drawn here. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 19:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Advocacy like your discedited militia based views.96.237.120.38 (talk) 20:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Some historians have pointed to English common law as providing the basis for the second amendment". Unfortunatately the editors saying that a common law right existed are unable or willing to provide any sources to back up that statement and instead provide countless arguments like, Re: "Some historians have pointed to English common law as providing the basis for the second amendment". Unfortunatately the editors saying that a common law right existed are unable or willing to provide any sources to back up that statement and instead provide countless arguments like, "History states that Ugh the Caveman had a right to his spears and clubs". TFD (talk) 19:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I continue to ask if Ugh the caveman had a common law right to his clubs and spears and if this right predated the English Bill of Rights.96.237.120.38 (talk) 20:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the Common law did not come into place until the Middle Ages in England, and therefore no, a caveman did not have any rights under common law. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 20:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Oliver Wendell Holmes seems to think that "common law" is quite a bit older then you think. Pardon me for having more faith in him then I have in you. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Oliver+Wendell+Holmes In The Common Law, Holmes traced the origins of the common law to ancient societies where liability was based on feelings of revenge and the subjective intentions of a morally blameworthy wrongdoer. For example, Holmes observed that in such societies creditors were permitted to cut up and divide the body of a debtor who had breached the terms of a contract.96.237.120.38 (talk) 21:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

So what law protected his right to his property (spears and clubs)? I hope that we don't disagree that Ugh the cavemen is included in "people".96.237.120.38 (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

@TFD Agreed. Can I also make a suggestion that might allow us to calm the waters. A repeated problem here is that when people speak of "the right", they are talking of different things. To some "the right" means armed self defense. Or, "the right" to have guns for hunting. To others, "the right" means a right of revolution. To even others, "the right" means the right for the states to keep well regulated militias. When we toss the word "right" around without distinguishing which version of the right is being spoken of, we too often spin up and out of focus while arguing personal opinion. Let's get disciplined, and focus on an article that neutrally and fairly covers all significant points of view, strictly using the most reliable sources. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet}

What makes you think that there are versions of the right? You cannot sustain that there are "versions of the right". The right is what the right is and it stemmed from a personal right of self defence just as Blackstone had said and not from the duty to performm military service. It is so clear. We can accept that minority of others have a different point of view (Joyce Lee Malcolm for example) but we should not pretend as you have done in the past edits (and enly a couple days ago with this http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=371540540&oldid=371539403 edit that the only possible explanation is the military service view (a modern revisionist position specifically designed to make the Second Amendment look like a peak in the development of a right when in fact that is a total fabrication and a revision of a 1000 years on English history). This is why this dispute is still going on! You clearly have not learned a thing!--Hauskalainen (talk) 07:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Answering your question: When I look at reliable sourcing I see that a variety of books on the subject describe a transition in the viewpoint of the nature of the right(s) to arms. There are many, but three major sources that describe the right(s) which are particularly influential are Sanford Levinson's 1989 Yale Law Journal article[21], also see the Garry Will's book ISBN 9780684870267, especially Chapter 6. Also, Saul Cornell's book ISBN 978-0195147865, Chapter 1. (Not to mention the books by DeConde, Williams and Uviller/Merkel, see the article for page numbers.) Would you answer my question now? Please tell us what reliable sourcing you are reading that describes your "natural right" hypothesis? SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 18:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Levinson says NOTHING OF THE SORT!! I don't know about Wíll's book but maybe you'd be kind enough to give us a direct quote and the same with the others. I am beginning to think that you are keen to quote from sources that I cannot check. Last time someone did that it was clear that he was merely repeating an earlier given source. As to the sources as to natural rights we have given you Blackstone (several times now) and we have the wording of the Bill of Rights which claimed it as an "ancient right". This is the source that stood the test of time until, it seems, Malcolm decided to challenge it. Now you are claimin that others have independently come the same conclusion as Malcolm or agree with her. I'd like a direct quote from your claimed sources please that demonstrates that they DO NOT ACCEPT that the English generally had a right to arms before the passage of the Bill of Rights. --Hauskalainen (talk) 01:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding me. I am not arguing that what you believe is wrong, (though I still am waiting for you to show your sources). Nor am I arguing that what the others believe is truth. I am simply reading a wide spectrum of reliable sourcing and noticing that there are different points of view. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 02:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

We are arguing about whether Malcolm's revisionist theory of a developing right, is well supported. You claimed that these other people support this view. But I cannot see that they do and when I ask you for a direct quote from the books you mention to show that they do support that view then you fail to do so. I have shown you my source. It was a leading jurist from the period and to my knowledge that view has not changed until Malclm came up with her startling revisionist theory. The key point we are discussing, let me remind you, is that revisionist theory of Malcolm is but one minority view and it is wrong, as your edit did recently, to present it as an accepted fact. It simply is not. It is a POV and the article should state that it is a POV.--Hauskalainen (talk) 16:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

No, not we. You "...are arguing whether Malcolm's revisionist theory of a developing right is well supported." And, I am simply reading books and trying to fairly describe what the various books say. I don't know what "revisionist theory" means in this context. This boils down to the question of whether sources are considered to be WP:RS or not, and that question should be asked on the RS noticeboard. This does not boil down to whether Hauskalainen says a book is to be discarded because he thinks it is "revisionist history". Would you answer my question now? Please tell us what reliable sourcing you are reading that describes your "natural right" hypothesis? SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 18:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly, today in the mail, my recently purchased copy of the Clayton E. Cramer book (suggested by TFD) arrived, ISBN 9780275949136. It can be fairly said that Clayton Cramer is at the extreme end of the 'individual rights' point of view. I have only started reading Cramer's book, but I notice right away that even he acknowledges the role of the militia tradition as part of the history of bearing arms precedent to the 2A. For instance on pages 1 and 2 Cramer describes "Two radically different interpretations of the Second Amendment are commonly espoused in the United States. One school asserts that the Second Amendment protects the right of individual states to maintain military forces independent of any national government... The other school claims that the Second Amendment protects an individual right "to keep and bear arms" ... essential to maintaining a counterbalance to both federal and state governmental power". "The two positions are not necessarily mutually exclusive; a society might believe in both perspectives, or either, or neither."SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 02:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding me. I am not arguing about what the Second Amendment was referring to - a personal right or a right to have arms to serve in a militia. I am taking you to task for claiming that, IN ENGLAND, the right to arms developed from an obligation to serve in the military. That is Malcolm's revisionist theory and it is not in accordance with other historical views of the right to have arms which is that it was regarded as fundamental to the individual to defend his life when all other means had failed. This about THE LAW IN ENGLAND. --Hauskalainen (talk) 17:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Cramer identifies two primary POV's the "states to maintain military" (militia) point of view and the "counterbalance to...governmental power" (insurrectionist) point of view, and says they are not mutually exclusive. Notable in it's absence is your "natural right of self defensive" point of view from Cramer's two primary POV opening passage. Also, on page 19-29 (Chapter 2 "European Origins"), Cramer writes "The tradition of an armed citizenry in Britain, as part of the military obligation to the state, is of long standing. Henry II's Assize of Arms of 1181 required all freemen to arm themselves for the common defense". It appears that you don't even agree with Clayton Cramer who is at the extreme end of the 'individual rights' POV camp! SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 02:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

All of us here are quite aware of the militia based view which you push. Just about everyone is also aware that the Supreme Court has described that viewpoint as worthy of the mad hatter.

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.71.184.184.238 (talk) 04:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

all this is irrelevant to the issue I have raised which is about the source of the "right" (=freedom to act) to use arms IN ENGLAND in 1688 and not what what was meant by the terms when used in America a hundred years or more later.--Hauskalainen (talk) 17:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I personally like Justice Story - http://www.constitution.org/js/js_344.htm

The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.184.238 (talk) 19:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Addressing Hauskalainen request of 01:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC) where he asked "I'd like a direct quote from your claimed sources please that demonstrates that they DO NOT ACCEPT that the English generally had a right to arms before the passage of the Bill of Rights." This is a diversion from the key issue here is that there are different points of view seen in reliable sourcing regarding the English history which is viewed as precedent to the Second Amendment. When we read the spectrum of reliable sources we see essentially four or five themes being cited as significant in English history ordered according to the frequency:

1) Militia theory. An ancient history of militia military service, most commonly identified as originating with the Assize of Arms. Many reliable sources, mention this, and this is the most common theme seen. (Seen in Malcolm, Uviller & Merkel, Wills, DeConde, Cornel, Spitzer, Whisker, Cramer, Cottrol, Bodenhamer & Ely, Delgado & Stefancic, and others).

2) Insurrectionist theory. A tradition of armed resistance to tyranny. (Seen in Cramer, Halbrook and others.)

3) Self defense theory. A common law based right of arms for self defense. (Still waiting for Hauskalainen to identify his sourcing of this theory, but this is seen (I think) in Scalia's dicta in Heller, and in Cramer)

4) Gun Control theory. An ancient tradition of the group in power keeping arms out of the hands of undesirables. A similar theme to this is the slave/native control theory. (Seen in DeConde, Cornell, Bogus, Hadden, Bodenhamer/Ely, Uviller/Merkel and others.)

The main issue is that we see multiple points of view in the reliable sourcing, with several of the sources pointing out that more than one aspect of English history is important. We must include each point of view seen, fairly and without bias. We cannot limit this to just the one point of view that Hauskalainen thinks is the TRUTH point of view. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 16:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I posted a comment on Saltyboatr's talk page about Cramer, because I find it hard to find comments here. TFD (talk) 17:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Salty! Your supposedly #1 frequent items in the literature is actually a result of taking too many mind altering substances, resulting in an incurable state of "mad hatterism" . Since the Founding Fathers had little in the way of mind altering drugs available to them, there are no references to #1 and #4 in Revolutionary War era literature. The Founding Fathers had to deal with reality and not with that land beyond the looking glass.71.184.184.238 (talk) 23:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The Above Mess is Evading the Main Point

The subject of this article is a matter of US law, which, by definition, is as interpreted by the Supreme Court. By definition, most of the "questions" which Salty Boar seems to be endlessly shopping the world for tangents and irrelevant-to-the-US-law-topic alternate opinions and debates on, are, by definition not questions....they (such as the meaning of the wording of the Second Amendment), by definition, have been answered in and by by and are defined by the Heller decision. Those tangents might be relevant to a section of what some people wish the law was, but not to the main article which is on what it is. The open question (and of the McDonald case) is only the applicability of the Amendment to state and local laws.

There is significant detail and clarity in the Heller decision on this topic. It reaffirms what my 4th grade sentence structure teacher already knew, that endless creative theories about the preamble to the 2nd Amendment are irrelevant to its operative clause. North8000 (talk) 02:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Totally off the mark. The issue is what right the amendment protects - is it a right under common law or one created by the Bill of Rights 1689. DC v Heller does not decide that. TFD (talk) 03:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The "issue" is "what is the topic of this article?", and then see above. North8000 (talk) 10:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I somewhat agree with Four Deuces, but want to point out that Heller's dueling history is (judges doing history is another issue) a good reason why we look for some sources, rather than making the arguments in the talk page. If the supreme court can't reach an agreement, we certainly won't. The argument isn't settled simply on the side of the majority opinion in Heller because it was the majority. In the article we need to talk about those underlying sources (only using secondary sources of course), and while a discussion of whether or not the right predated the English Bill of Rights is relevant, it can't be argued sua sponte here, but needs some sourcing so we're not just having our own judicial conference... but instead improving the article. Shadowjams (talk) 05:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

What "argument"? If you're talking about the 2nd Amendment, the Supreme court decided it. I suppose folks who don't like a decision would try to say that if it wasn't unanimous, it wasn't a decision, but that's not how the court works. If the "argument" is whether people should be allowed to have guns, or the "world history of firearm rights" you're in the wrong place, this is an article about a particular US legal instrument. North8000 (talk) 10:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow. "The Supreme court decided it." Since when does the Supreme court trump WP:NPOV policy at Wikipedia? No. If we see significant POV's in reliable sourcing we must include them fairly in the article. The (latest opinion) of the Supreme Court, Orbiter dicta, describes just one of the significant POVs. You are not talking about the holding of the court here. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 13:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

You are creating a red herring argument by mixing two different things. The Supreme court (in the areas of question that it ruled) is the definer of that which is the subject of the article. Like the last election defined who is the President of the United States. NPOV might call for alternate opinions or endless discussions like "John McCain should have been President", but it does not call for airing opinions or endless discussions claiming that John McCain IS the president of the United States. North8000 (talk) 14:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

@North800 Wrote: "The areas in question it ruled". The SCOTUS did not "rule" on the meaning of history. Their ruling (properly called, their "holding") was about one municipal ordinance in the District of Columbia. This is the court's holding, quote: "In sum, we hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense." And no, the court did not rule on the meaning of history. The court wrote their opinion of history, non-binding Obiter dictum about history. If we disagree about the policy here whether the non-binding opinion of the Supreme Court trumps WP:NPOV policy, then that question should be put to the NPOV noticeboard. I don't see how non-binding opinion of a court can justify deletion from this encyclopedia of significant points of view seen in reliable sourcing. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 14:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Who said "rule on the meaning of history"....another red herring argument. I said that it ruled on the meaning of the words of the Second Amendment, in areas where such was in question. And whoever said that a supreme court ruling trumps NPOV policy with respect to WP content? Nobody!.....another red herring argument. My analogy on the presidential election / who is the current president of the USA above applies here. NPOV wight dictate covering "McCain should have become the President" views, but not "McCain IS the President" views. North8000 (talk) 15:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Neither did the court rule on the meaning of the Second Amendment. Their holding is quoted above "In sum, we hold...", and pertains to a municipal gun ordinance. Their obiter dictum is something else, and yes that dicta does discuss the Second Amendment, and yes it does describe one significant point of view which deserves coverage in this article. Which policy are you thinking of that says that their point of view should be the only point of view described in this article? Or, am I missing your point? SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 16:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

My point is that that, on the topic at hand (meaning of wording in a US legal instrument)the Supreme Court DEFINES the reality, it is not an "opinion" on the reality. One can oppose what they did, but not deny what they did, ditto for WP coverage. I think that I communicated my point, you are ignoring the key points of what I said and instead inventing straw man arguments that I did not make and arguing against those. I think I'm signing out now. I just dropped in because I heard elsewhere about the issues raised regarding what you are doing to this talk page. North8000 (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The court did in fact rule on the meaning of the Second, because the contested law was contested as being contrary to the Second, and the Supreme Court so ruled and the law was made null and void.96.237.120.38 (talk) 16:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The law was not null or voided, rather per the court order the law was revised to remedy the constitutional problems. These new "presumptively lawful regulatory measures" (Heller, pg. 55) were deemed "regulations ... as permissible" (Heller, pg 63). Dick Anthony Heller then sued the District over this, (see Civil Action No. 08-1289), and he lost that case on March 26, 2010[22]. Presently, the District of Columbia has one of the most restrictive set of gun control laws in the country, all found to be Constitutional per the Heller ruling on March 26th, 2010. It remains illegal to have a handgun outside the home in DC. Strict registration requirements remain. It remains nearly impossible to purchase a handgun in DC. 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, with the one exception being if you are facing immediate threat, and even then gun must be directly accessible such as in a holster or being held in your hand. Those handgun regulations exist today and are Constitutional.SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 19:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The Supreme Court upHELD a lower court ruling which stated that the DC regulations were contrary to the Second, therefore unconstitutional and thus null and void. DC Appealed to the Supreme Court, which upHELD the lower court ruling.96.237.120.38 (talk) 20:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, read the ruling, pg 63. The SCOTUS only ordered the District to use "permissible" regulations, while at the same time stating that essentially all conceivable regulations were declared to be "presumptively lawful regulatory measures" (Heller, pg. 55). Scores of federal court cases have been heard[23] in the last two years where gun laws were deemed "presumptively lawful regulatory measures" and fully Constitutional. The District did this, revising their regulations. This was tested in court with Civil Action No. 08-1289, and the new regulations were found to be Constitutional on March 26, 2010[24]. The District presently has some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the country, and they have been deemed Constitutional. The net change amounts to the use of a revolver (though not a pistol) inside the home only during an event of immediate threat. Essentially nothing else in the DC law has changed. If you don't believe me, read Civil Action No. 08-1289 (RMU), No. 23., 25[25]. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 20:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The lower court ruled that the original regulations were unconstitutional and thus null and void. The US Supreme Court upHELD that ruling. How many times do I have to repeat this before it sinks in?96.237.120.38 (talk) 21:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

And, that same lower court subsequently held that the revised strict gun control regulations were constitutional under Heller, see Civil Action No. 08-1289[26]. My point is that this article should reflect the current condition, seen in reliable sourcing[27], that essentially any conceivable gun control regulation is considered "permissible" and were deemed "presumptively lawful regulatory measures" by the Heller decision. The article gives undue emphasis to the symbolic "individual right" portion of the dicta, but the "presumptively lawful" words in the dicta have been cited as the practical and operative words taken from Heller in more than eighty court cases so far. See the article in the UCLA Law review for a detailed examination of this trend in lower federal courts interpreting Heller these last two years. ...this celebrated landmark decision (Heller) has had almost no effect on the constitutionality of gun control. To date, the federal courts have yet to invalidate a single gun control law for violating the Second Amendment right to bear arms, despite scores of cases." SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 21:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Sad to say you still don't get it. The US Supreme Court upHELD the lower court ruling which declared the original DC laws contrary to the Second Amendment and thus null and void. 96.237.120.38 (talk) 22:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I accept that you are right, the lower court was upHELD by Heller. I don't deny that. And, I haven't close my eyes to the events since 2008. Things have happened in the courts during the last two years. That same lower court found the new strict DC gun control laws to be entirely Constitutional. Plus, eighty+ other federal court cases pointed to the "presumptively lawful" wording in Heller and upHELD essentially every gun control law brought before them. Read the UCLA Law review article[[28] which examines post-Heller court cases. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 22:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Aren't there a few Chicago area laws that got struck down as well? If so your selective blindness knows no bounds!96.237.120.38 (talk) 22:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly struct down. Post-Heller, some gun laws in the Chicago vicinity towns of Morton Grove, Wilmette and Evanston, Illinois were voluntarily repealed by those town councils when faced with the cost of defending the lawsuits against deep pockets of the NRA. The big deal now is the one Chicago lawsuit that did go to trial. On Monday the verdict of the one remaining gun law, McDonald v. Chicago is likely to be announced. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 13:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Modified regulations exist today which may or may not be constitutional. The original regulations were struck down.96.237.120.38 (talk) 20:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't care where this right came from, I just care that we provide reliably sourced information about it. IP's personal theory that Ugh the caveman had the right to bear arms is just disruptive converstation. IP, could you please stop wasting everyone's time, and provide actual sources, rather than treating this like a blog page on the John Birch Society website. TFD (talk) 06:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Common law is derived from the "common practices" of the people. If Ugh the Caveman had the right to carry around his spears and clubs, then that was a "common practice". Same for Vikings and their axes, Mongols their bows, and more recently, cowboys their revolvers and farmers their shotguns. Anyone want to point to a case where Billy the Kid was brought before a judge for carrying a weapon?96.237.120.38 (talk) 12:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The common law developed from case law. At some point Sheriff Barney Rubble tried to take Ugh's guns away from him and Mr. Justice Fred Flintstone said that Ugh had a right to have guns or he did not. It appears that Flintsone J. ruled that he did not. TFD (talk) 13:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

And that case law is based on whether something is punishable or not. For Ugh carrying weapons was not a punishable act. After J Flintosne ruled in that manner he was then tarred and feathered and tossed from the tribe, and Ugh got his stuff back. HHMMM! Sounds like what happened to King James II.96.237.120.38 (talk) 13:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The article may be about U.S. law but the section being argued about is about English law. We cannot have revisionist U.S. historians and their followers editing Wikipedia articles wping out 1000 years of British history. The right to have arms in England was and still is one of having the right to defend oneself in the event that other means of control have failed to prevent someone from taking your life. That was outlined in Blackstone and is reflected in the wording of the English Bill of Rights. Attempts such as this which is aimed at wiping out 1000 years of history and substituting it with a new revisionist history which tells a myth of a developing right culminating in the Second Ammendment is what this long and proteacted dispute is about. DO NOT FORGET THAT!

The section that you are writing in (that I started) is about the article as a whole....maybe you didn't notice and thought that it was a subsection of the topic which you are describing. North8000 (talk) 11:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)