Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

Correct Text

The current article has two different versions of the text, differing in commas and punctuation in significant places. Legally of course (in theory at least), there can only be one version of the text. Is it too much to ask that the correct version be verified and displayed on its own, or would this inevitably step on too many toes? Personally, I think the current two version page—no doubt a result of consensus—is an appallingly lax presentation of a significantly important topic. ObsessiveMathsFreak (talk) 23:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

You should read the first source in that section. There doesn't appear to be a "correct version". The amendments needed to be approved by congress and ratified by two-thirds of the states. The congress approved one variation and the states ratified various. The Supreme Court has referred to both a three and one comma version. We had, at one time, a text section and a commas section, with these interesting details. As i recall, The text section was often changed back and forth, so we ended up presenting both and removing the then redundant commas section. How would you suggest we proceed? Celestra (talk) 00:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

OMF brings up a good point (there should be an "official" version), but Celestra is correct (one has not been identified by the Supreme Court as "official"). Unless the Supreme Court picks one to the exclusion of all others, we should not claim any are correct with the others being wrong. BTW, proposed amendments need to ratified by three-fourths of the States in order to be adopted. SMP0328. (talk) 00:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Trying to formulate roadmap proposal, questions about reference format.

(copied / retrieved from the recent archive)

I think that nearly everyone acknowledges that this article could use some organizing and updating. I have been trying to develop a "roadmap" proposal, and trying to learn what's in the article (and the intent of such) well enough to do so intelligently. I ended up needing some help and thoughts on the latter regarding the reference format. As far as I can tell the intent is to split it so that the particular citation is in the first section, and such just briefly mentions (author and title) the source. And then the source is fully detailed in the second section, starting with the last name of the author. I'm assuming the reason for the split is so that when the same source is used many times, but with different pages, that this split method avoids having to fully describe the source multiple times. I guess the down side would be the complexity of it. To follow the practice, an editor would have to learn/understand the system, and make two entries for each citation. And, also, when people don't do this, you end up with a mixture as we currently have, where many sources are only in the top section. Also, unless one tackles a huge manual job, there is no way to find orphaned unused reference in the second section.

1. Did I sum this up right?

2. Do people have an opinion for or against this "split" concept?

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

North8000 (talk) 13:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

1/2 of a road map proposal

1. I guess the first item (which I brought up August 31st above with no opinions received since) is to merge the "split" reference section into a single references section. This could be done gradually, by, for each citation in the "notes and citations" section, copying the reference material from the"references" section into the citation. Of course, there is already a "mixture" in there. When someone adds a reference in the normal manner, it goes only and fully into the "notes and citations" section. When this process is completed (could take months) then delete the "references" section and rename the"notes and citations" section to "references"

Comment - to clarify, you're saying let's get the non-inline refs into inline? AliveFreeHappy

Just to make sure I'm not using the wrong words, they would still be in line citations as they are now. But it would go to an entry at the bottom which has all of the info on the source. So, in essence, the two lists at the bottom would be combined into one. Or, to put it another way, the same system that is used on the majority of WP articles.North8000 (talk) 17:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

(talk) 17:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

1. Reduce the "English History" section by about 1/3. This section seems a little big /slightly less germane for this article, more so now because some arguments which they provided foundation information for are now settled.

Agree English History should be brief here with a "main article" reference to the proper location. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

1. Eliminate about 90% of the material in "Lower Court Cases Since Heller", and the in the future move the other 10% into some new section. 90% of this section is basically selected post Heller pre-McDonald court cases which doubly have no relationship to the Heller decision. First, since they were pre-McDonald, Heller was not yet binding on these. Second, they are in areas where Heller is irrelevant, and where Heller declared itself to be irrelevant. I can't even see why this section exists. The only reason I can see for that section is someone inserting selection of cases to make or imply a particular point. One could trot out various WP:OR and WP:Undue citation relevant to this, but I'd rather start with just discussing how to make the article better. The remaining 10% would be those which have some reference to Heller.

Agree AliveFreeHappy (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

1. Put all lower court cases (including state) into one section.

Done North8000 (talk) 13:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

2. Somehow start developing something like an "Open Questions" section. I imagine that this would include areas that are not clearly inside or outside of the reach of Heller.

Agree AliveFreeHappy (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, this is only 1/2 of a road map. The second half (later) would deal with organization of material.

Any thoughts? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

All of that plan seems reasonable to me. I'd add the reducing the "Meaning of..." sections and removing the first few paragraphs from the beginning of "Experience in America...", but that could come later.

The current reference structure seems like a good attempt at reducing the bulk, but it makes finding the actual reference much more burdensome. It would be good to try again with some framework beneath it to link the abbreviated citation (with the page and quote) to the full citation. Celestra (talk) 00:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess if there were lots of repetition of citation use, this split concept would reduce the bulk. If not, it owuld increase the bulk. I haven't figured out which is the case here. But either way, splitting it adds complexity for the reader, and doubly so for someone adding a reference. Which is presumably why many have not been following it, and we have a mixture of the two systems. North8000 (talk) 19:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Null edit to prevent moving to archives North8000 (talk) 13:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced Addition

An editor recently added the following paragraph to the subsection English history:

Thus the effect of the Bill of Rights in England (and Wales) was to ensure that only an elected body, the parliament, could determine an individual's right to bear arms. Thus democratically elected parliaments have been able to exercise the collective will of the people for more restrictions on the ownership of weapons as society has become safer under the rule of law and with law enforcement transferred from the people (hue and cry system) to formal bodies established to maintain law and order such as the police (against internal threats) and the nation's armed forces (against external threats). This contrasts markedly with the effect of the similar Bill of Rights in America (incorporating the Second Amendment) which over time has been interpreted as creating a personal right to bear arms for personal protection. And because it is a part of the constitution, the collectively will of the people thorough state legislatures cannot overrule it, except in certain cases deemed appropriate by the Supreme Court.

I reverted the addition because none of it is sourced. The editor just undid my reversion and in the edit summary said: "Hey please just mark the bits you think need references....I'll get them." Well, it's certainly a civil request, but given that none of it is sourced, shouldn't the burden be on the editor to source it before adding it? Am I the only one bothered by the addition?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I have clarified some of the word in the above material, so it now reads:

Thus the effect of the English Bill of Rights was to ensure that only an elected body, the parliament, could determine an individual's right to bear arms. Thus democratically elected parliaments have been able to exercise the collective will of the people for more restrictions on the ownership of weapons as society has become safer under the rule of law and with law enforcement transferred from the people (hue and cry system) to formal bodies established to maintain law and order such as the police (against internal threats) and the nation's armed forces (against external threats). This contrasts markedly with the effect of the similar U.S. Bill of Rights (which includes the Second Amendment) that over time has been interpreted as creating a personal right to bear arms for personal protection. Because it is a part of the Constitution, the collective will of the people thorough state legislatures cannot overrule it, except in certain cases deemed appropriate by the Supreme Court.

I believe the burden is on the editor adding the material to also provide reliable sourcing for it. I believe one week should be allowed for the providing of reliable sourcing. At that time, any part of the above material not reliably sourced should removed from the article. SMP0328. (talk) 22:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

That sounds very reasonable, but what do you base that time frame on? Why should the material be added before the sources are found? I'm not trying to be argumentative, it simply doesn't make sense to me and, more important, doesn't comply with policy. Finally, a lot can happen in a week. You've already made some changes to the material. Other editors may make more changes. And then at the end of a week, we remove the material because it's not sourced, having wasted the time of the intervening editors?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm cutting Hauskalainen some slack. The deadline should be one week from when Hauskalainen restored the disputed material to the article, unless there's agreement to another time. SMP0328. (talk) 23:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know that anyone agreed to the 7-day time frame. :-) However, if you want to cut the editor some slack, and no one else objects, I'm not going to make any more of a fuss than I already have.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced statements are unacceptable, especially one the expresses opinions. Also, it is incorrect that parliaments are "democratically elected". The monarch and the Lords, who are part of parliament, are not elected. And while the Commons is democratically elected today, that was not the case when the Bill of Rights was passed. TFD (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Have removed the original research. There are multiple problems with the statements. Unsourced original research can be removed at any time by longstanding Wiki policy. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 21:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Hauskalainen has restored that material. I have added a citation header to the Pre-Constitution background section (the section in which Hauskalainen's material is located). Including Hauskalainen's material, there are paragraphs worth of uncited material. Should that material be moved to this talk page? SMP0328. (talk) 22:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

In theory, any unsourced material can be removed. However, I give some slack to material in an article that has been there for a while, even if unsourced, as long as it's not controversial or inaccurate. However, when an editor adds an entire paragraph of unsourced material and another editor rightfully removes it, the burden is on the adding editor to source it before restoring it. It shouldn't be the other way around. I haven't been doing the reversions, though, because I said earlier in the discussion that I would wait as you requested. But I also said if "no one else objects," and others have been objecting. Frankly, what's the problem with the adding editor sourcing it and restoring it later? It's not like there's anything "urgent" in the material. It can wait until it's done properly.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

There definitely appears to be a consensus against that material as long as it is unsourced. As for the other unsourced material, I'll leave it for now (as long as the citation header remains). Unless it is sourced, we should consider moving that material. This article has been a source of controversy in the past and I don't want allowance for unsourced material to become a new source. SMP0328. (talk) 00:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that sounds like a very reasonable plan. My only suggestion is that if you or someone else wants to remove "old" unsourced material, you might want to do it in increments so editors can discuss it. Removal of too much at once can create havoc.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that someone just deleted Hauskalainen's material en masse. From what I have see of his/her expertise, in the real world Hauskalainen would be ranked as a much more expert and reliable source in their area of expertise than most Wikipedia "Reliable Sources", and this was an excellent informative piece of writing. Not that that is relevant here.  : - ( North8000 (talk) 03:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Heller and new paradigm

I have changed the claim that the new militia-based view, sometimes described as limited individual rights view or civic rights, theory has few adherents. It has been adopted articulated in two major peer reviewed university books published by Oxford and Duke, and elaborated in peer reviewed scholarly journals such as Law and History Review. It was endorsed in several amicus briefs in McDonald which brings the number of scholarly supporters to well over fifty. Moreover, it was adopted by four justices of SCOTUS. Rather than say few supporters it would be better to call it what it is the Dissenting view in Heller, a modification I would have little trouble with. The earlier claim is simply uninformed and not NPOV. I don't see how even the most ardent gun rights advocate could dispute this claim-- it is a simple statement of what happened in HellerPhilo-Centinel (talk) 17:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I ran out of time to thoroughly review and discuss it. However your last few sentences are quite a major reach and uncited. Calling it a "new" model, (especially since it is a mostly old model that was controversial at best, and now largely discredited) and saying that the 4 SCOTUS Justices adopted it. I don't want to start reverting. Could you review your work with respect to this? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I revised the sentences in an effort to make the asssertions more neutral, better worded, and cited. However, I want to make it clear that I was trying only to improve it, not deciding whether it even belonged in the article. Even when I changed Stevens to "agreeing" with the model rather than adopting it, I was bothered by the statement because it implies that Stevens read the authors' statements and then agreed with them. I found the whole thing kind of awkward.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

My point exactly. Philo, do you have any thoughts on this? North8000 (talk) 23:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

This all seems reasonable. Clearly Stevens did not go collective rights and his reading--individual rights controlled by the preamble is pretty much what the new historical model claimed. The Stevens Dissent cited several essays by the historians so this seems a NPOV summary of the current state of the debate for SCOTUS-- individual rights 5 votes, militia constrained individual right four votes, traditional collective rights view no votes. Even gun rights advocates such as Robert Cottrol take note of a so-called sophisticated collective rights view, but that term is not how supporters of the new model would view it-- I would follow NYT practice-- adopt the label of the users, not the critics-- sort of like calling pro-life people-- anti-choice and pro-choice people anti-lifeBrutusjr (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

English Bill of Rights of 1689

The discussion regarding the English Bill of Rights is extremely misleading. It relies strictly on a parsing of the text of the statute and ignores its enforcement and subsequent interpretation. For example, while asserting that the right of Catholics (Papists)to keep arms predated the statute and therefore was not modified by it, the actuality of the statute was that the language regarding "Protestants" was interpreted for almost 300 years to mean ONLY Protestants could bear arms and Catholics were not only prohibited from keeping arms but were on multiple occasions stripped of existing arms as well as periodically denied the right to serve in the English army. Further, while the author here states that the Bill of Rights was affirming generalized rights to keep arms, and merely clarifying that Protestants (previously denied this right) were now being restored to their rights, the reality of interpretation and enforcement of the next 300 years was that the language "according to their station" was interpreted and enforced to mean only landowners and those with hunting licenses had the RIGHT to keep arms. Others could keep arms only through sufferance and were on multiple occasions denied the right to keep arms as well as being periodically stripped of their arms through involuntary seizures.

The article therefore creates and amazingly misleading impression that the right to keep and bear arms is a traditional right under common law of long standing; one that predates the US Constitution and therefore (echoing Rove and others arch right wing versions of history) the US Constitution and Bill of Rights must be interpreted in this light. This is a long-standing canard and one that needs to be corrected in this article. The English Bill of Rights did NOT establish a universal right to bear arms. Prior to the US Constitution the English Bill of Rights and common law was understood clearly by all (and especially by the Founders) to mean that the government had the right to reasonably control the distribution and keeping of armaments of every type. The Government had the right to restrict the ownership of arms and to reasonably regulate their use. This is the accurate historical and legal context in which the Founders drafted the militia clauses of the US Constitution and the subsequent Bill of Rights. Madison understood this clearly which is why he asked that the Second Amendment not stand alone in an appendix, but rather be incorporated into the text of Article 1, section 8 the Militia Clauses so as to avoid any confusion and make it clear that the right to keep and bear arms was only intended to be in well regulated militias. Other ownership of arms was by way of a property right and therefore subject to reasonable law and regulation.

The US Supreme Court recognized this and in his decision Justice Scalia discarded historical references to the English Bill of Rights and subsequent enforcement, treating history as he often does as a "dead hand" restricting his otherwise free-form interpretation of the Constitution and revisionist historical perspective that he is given by the Heritage Foundation. He further recognized the reality that history does not support the District decision when he, for the first time in US History, actually re-wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights by excising the preamble to the Second Amendment stating, "A well regulated militia being necessary etc.." declaring the preamble to no longer be part of the Bill of Rights. To rationalize his views, at odds with history and 235 years of legal precedent, he actually re-wrote the Bill of Rights.

Scalia's decision was not so much "original intent" (none of his decisions are) but rather a modernist reflection of the current political and emotional climate of America. His decision reflects the will of polity today and has nothing to do with history, the Bill of Rights of English Common Law.

This article should not "back project" revisionist history as a way of rationalizing the current legal status of the 2n Amendment -- Scalia didn't bother why should Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benfeing (talk • contribs) 18:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

To the extent that you want to make changes to the article and back it up with reputable sources, you should do it (I'm not commenting on the merits of your assertions). One of the problems generally with the section is that some of it is sourced and some of it isn't. Still, that doesn't mean we should replace unsourced material that says x with unsourced material that says y. Better to have everything be sourced.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The article is a nightmare and lacks reliable secondary sources. Also, the article omits to mention that the Bill of Rights 1689 as an imperial statute was the law in all the American colonies. TFD (talk) 20:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Benfeing says "was interpreted for almost 300 years to mean ONLY Protestants could bear arms" and repeats the allegation. I find that highly contentious. Where do you get that impression from? All I have read is ONE statement from an English lawyer in the 19th Century and host of more recent American books on the Second Amendment which seem to me have not done their research properly, and worse still, have just copied each other without checking their facts. The phrase was not "according to their station" (in life) but "suitable to their Conditions". The meaning is ambiguous. Some have implied that "their" here refers to the owners and not the arms in which case the interpretation would be "their standing in society as landowners" given earlier controls on gun ownership "for the preservation of the game". But whether or not "their" refers to the natire of the arms or the owners, this has nothing to do with religious divisions. It is simply not true that the Bill of Rights gave a right to Protestants and denied it to Catholics as many of those American authors have claimed. I doubt that you will find a serious British historian or lawyer making the same mistake but if you can find one, please let me know. As for creating an "amazingly misleading impression" I wholly disagree. The fact is that the law in England has always been one of freedoms against overwhelming use of powers by the King.. Hence Magna Carta. I am sorry if you see it otherwise. That there was in force in England at that time feudalism which did not peter out until the black death. The simple truth is that gun laws were implemented first of all to preserve the gaming rights of the landed. The situation was very different for the American settlers who took up rights of occupation to land by getting their and enforcing it with weapons. A gun was much more important to the American settlers than it was for the English for whom hunting was the prime concern rather than defence. The English Civil War made weapons rather more important for defence and offence which was the backround to numerous attempts at disarmament. The Glorious revolution changed that, and this was the context of the Bill of Rights. But it is wholly wrong to argue, as some American writers have done, that the Bill of rights granted a new right and only gave it to Protestants. They simply had not read the bill properly or learned their English history. English law is simply not founded on "rights" written into statute except in very few instances - and this is NOT one of them. The right not be imprisoned without the ability to challenge; the right to a fair trial; the right to petition... these are the fundamental rights. There is no "right" to free speech in England or a "right" to free assembly.... but there is no law banning this either. The right to free speech is, like most rights, one that has to be balanced. The important fact is that the English have WILLINGLY given up their "rights" (more properly their freedom) to keep firearms because it is for the common good. I know some Americans find that alarming but that is the simple truth. The English parliament is deemed to represnt the will of the people and is free to act and is not hide bound in relation to "gun rights" as Americans are to the constitutional nature of the Bill of Rights. I did add a passage to this effect recently but someone deleted it for lack of a source. Notwithstanding this, it is a reasonable interpretation of the the difference between English and American Law. --Hauskalainen (talk) 21:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Why is the prehistory included here?

The paragraph on English history should be referenced here, but not included. As it is too long and has little bearing on the the actual 2nd amendment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.121.86.7 (talk • contribs) 06:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Assize of Arms

The last paragraph of the English history subsection of the Pre-Constitution background section refers to the Assize of Arms of 1181. This paragraph, IMO, is out of place. The paragraph should either be moved to the top of the subsection or, if it is not germane to the subsection, removed from the article. SMP0328. (talk) 00:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

American text books tend to refer to the Assize of Arms as an example of the formation of militias for the defence of the state. The link to the Second Amendment as far as I can see is zero or at best only tangential. I kept a reference to it in a citation about militias which is where I think it belongs. The Assize of Arms is not a significant piece of English history... I am a English history scholar and until I read around the issue of the American history on gun laws I had never heard of it... It seems to me that some lazy American scholars have just scoured the indices of history books on arms and happened across this decree, So it really is very obscure and not very meaningful historically .... people have clubbed together with arms for defence since time immemorial. English attempts to fight off viking invasions were not done unarmed!--Hauskalainen (talk) 17:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, now the Assize of Arms is in context; although I wouldn't object to its removal. SMP0328. (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Interpreted vs. Reinterpreted

Hauskalainen changed this sentence in the lead: "Two recent Supreme Court decisions, District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010), interpreted the Second Amendment." He changed the word "interpreted" to "reinterpreted". His original justification was that the lower courts interpreted the amendment one way, and the S. Ct. interpreted it a different way. I reverted the change because the S. Ct.'s reversal of a lower court decision doesn't constitute a reinterpretation. If the S. Ct. had interpreted the amendment in one way and then changed their minds, that might fairly be characterized as a reinterpretation, particularly if the court admits to the change (overruling, disapproving, etc.). However, a reversal of a lower court's interpretation simply means that the lower court is wrong in its interpretation. After my reversion, Hauskalainen reverted my reversion and added what he considers a source supporting his view. However, that source is a law review article that criticizes the decision in Heller. It may be the opinion of the author that Heller reinterpreted the amendment, but that kind of opinion doesn't belong in the lead of the article. If it belongs anywhere, it would be in the Notes and analysis section discussing Heller.

I don't want to get in an edit war with Hauskalainen, so I'm soliciting comments on the question.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Bbb23 that the SCOTUS didn't reinterpret a previous SCOTUS interpretation. And the Winkler article, in the only paragraph which uses the word "reinterpreted," states that it was "the lower federal courts read the amendment to protect only a militia-related right"--not the SCOTUS. Since lower court decisions are covered in other sections of the article, I think the lead should go back to using "interpreted." --Hamitr (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I have a huge amount of respect for Hauskalainen's expertise in the areas that they have been mainly contributing on this article. But I have to disagree with them on this and the poorly chosen source on this. It's interpret, not re-interpret. North8000 (talk) 17:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I have edited the Introduction so neither of those words is used. Now the Introduction simply says what the Supreme Court ruled in Heller and McDonald. Let each reader decide for himself if those were interpretations or reinterpretations. SMP0328. (talk) 18:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Although I appreciate your attempt to avoid the dispute by changing the wording, you inadvertently introduced an error in the sentence. I would have just fixed the error, but it's also odd now when compared to the previous version in that you summarize the rulings in the two cases in one sentence, you then elaborate on Heller (as previously), but you omit the elaboration on McDonald (as previously). I can see why you did that because the McDonald elaboration restates your summary, but it just strikes me as structurally wrong. And, honestly, I still prefer the original version.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I have again edited the Introduction. This edit returns Heller and McDonald to each having separate explanations, while still not referring to the Second Amendment as being "interpreted" or "reinterpreted". SMP0328. (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I've tweaked your second revision (thanks!). Hopefully, you - and others - like it.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Your tweak is accepted. I share your hope. SMP0328. (talk) 19:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Most certainly SCOTUS did not “reinterpret” a lower court’s decision, if fact they affirmed the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruling in Parker v. District of Columbia that held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms.SMP0328 & Bbb23 edits are acceptableGrahamboat (talk) 23:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I think "re-interpret" should only be used if they re-interpreted a previous SC decision, for example, if Roe v. Wade were overturned. TFD (talk) 23:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Further to my comment above, IMHO besides interpret being the correct word of the two, it's also to main and most common word used to describe what SCOTUS does. North8000 (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Collins dictionary http://www.thefreedictionary.com/reinterpret says it just means to "to interpret (an idea, etc.) in a new or different way". It does not say that the same person or body has to do the reinterpreting. I cannot find a single on line dictionary that says this matched my own understanding of the word. I think that these decisions were CLEARLY and almost INDISPUTABLY a reinterpretation of the law that I find it hard to believe that you are all having so much trouble accepting it. Everybody knows that the two cases have completely changed the legal landscape. See for example http://www.clevelandstatelawreview.org/57/issue3/Charles.pdf which goes into exquisite detail about Heller and why the author thinks that the decision was a complete reinterpretation of the law and a wrong one at that. He does not use the word "reinterpretation" as far as I can see, but this IS what he is saying. That HAS to be a reinterpretation. The justices decision certainly were a reinterpretation of the law as had been determined by numerous cases in the past in which the right to arms was determined to exist only in connection with the militia. I find it so astounding that you all DISAGREE with me that I make take this to some higher body for resolution. The cabal has been aroused!--Hauskalainen (talk) 03:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC) And I also provided a reference for "re-interpreted" . . . a Professor of Law at UCLA School of Law no less. --Hauskalainen (talk) 03:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that it is more correct to say that the law was unsettled, because the SC had never interpreted it. No lower court decision would be binding outside its jurisdiction. TFD (talk) 03:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Now now, Hauskalainen, don't have a heart attack....we need you here.  :-) Maybe we could check a couple more good refs and settle it. North8000 (talk) 03:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

There will never be a consensus on this issue. Both sides will be able to find numerous references supporting both views. While other cases skirted this issue, this was the first full review of the 2nd amendment. The fact that 39 states have adopted “shall issue” permits or “permit not needed” and 9 states have adopted “may issue” permit laws, shows the ruling did not completely changed the legal landscape. Gun control supporters will never accept this view but the issue is now settled and the ruling is now the law of the land. SMP0328 & Bbb23 edits present a fair compromise and neutral WP:POVGrahamboat (talk) 17:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

English versus American law

I added some text which details the difference that now exists between the UK law and the American law now that the Supreme Court, an unelected body, has interpreted the Second Amendment as containing a personal right. This has radically altered the basis of the law (even though the decision did not overturn much of the past legislation) which, until recently had been rather similar to that in England (though with powers being retained by State legislatures in the United States). States were not, until recently, hidebound by a "personal rights" interpretation. I can understand that some defenders of personal gun rights in the United States night not like the undemocratic nature of the twist in events being highlighted, but the fact is that the two recent decisions in the Supreme Court marks a distinct difference now between how the law is determined in the States versus the UK. Parliament is still supreme in England. The American legislatures now have to consider an enshrined "right". I think that difference needs to be highlighted. --Hauskalainen (talk) 23:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Another editor reverted your addition, and you reverted back. I have just undone your change because it's not sourced. You say what you add is "factually accurate". If that's so, then it shouldn't be hard to provide sources for it. Your comments above, by the way, betray your POV positions on some of these issues ("an unelected body" - "radically altered" - "I think that difference needs to be highlighted"). This article is not a forum for you to express your point of view.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Hauskalainen insists on injecting an anti-gun bias into this article. His “radically altered” theory was rejected in the Interpreted vs. Reinterpreted discussion. Now we are dealing with the SCOTUS decision as bring “undemocratic”. What most Americans would call an “Unalienable Right”, Hauskalainen wants to call an “enshrined right”. Certainly this is not NPOV. He seems to be implying that the United States form of government is somehow less democratic than the U.K. where, as he claims, the Parliament can, by a simple majority vote, establish laws no matter what basic rights are involved. Fortunately, the Founding Fathers saw the error of this type of thinking and established a government of checks and balances that would make changing any basic right extremely difficultGrahamboat (talk) 20:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

English History

The English History section of the Pre-Constitution Background appears to be exceedingly long. I propose to edit (delete about 500 words) items that are not germane to the subject; specifically:

1. The ref to Heller doesn’t belong in the first paragraph of “English History”.

2. “Both the U.S. and English texts...” - Comparisons about the 1st decade of the 21st century and the McDonald ref are not “Pre-Constitution background”

3. “Parliament though has repeatedly...” - What Parliament has done after the adoption of the 2nd A. is not relevant to “Pre-Constitution background”

4. “As England progressively...” - The UK’s Pistol Act has nothing to do with US 2nd A.

Realizing this is a controversial article, I thought it best to post on the talk page before executing my edit, so that no one would think I was trying to vandalize or impart a POV. Your comments would be appreciated. Grahamboat (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Rather than deleting that material, try finding more appropriate places within the article for each item. That way you won't change the article's content. SMP0328. (talk) 01:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Grahamboat to some extent about the length but not much about the content s/he would like to see dropped. The problem is that although many American writers have correctly identified the root of the 2nd Amendment in the English Bill of Rights, they have often misunderstood the Bill of Rights so that many American sources get their facts wrong. That was why Heller gets a mention because the Courts have rejected some of the American writers' claims. This is then compounded by writers mixing up rights and freedoms. A certain historian who I will not embarass has written history in a way that presents a wrong picture of English people gradually gaining "permissions" to have arms as a result of obligations and culminating in a "right" to have arms independent of any obligation, though subject to the will of Parliament to restrict it, and then culminating in the right of Americans gaining a constitional right. Such an interpretation requires a great stretch of the imagination and an ignorance of English law. The true picture is that both countries laws have been very similar. Even though American law is based on an English law tradition, English law contains very few rights because one person's rights tend to conflict with other person's freedom. There is no "right" to free speech in England. But neither is there much restriction either. One can defame someone but that is a civil matter and not a criminal one. One cannot incite murder or racial hatred without breaking the criminal code. I don't think the law is very different in America even though there are "rights" declared in the American constitution which are not in the British constitution. There was no right to bear arms in England, but people were not forbidden to have arms either. Certain arms have been the subject of restrictions for various reasons at various times and these days the restriction on firearms is quite strong. As they are or have been in certain places in the U.S. But these are matters for the parliament in England and for the state legislatures in the U.S. The fact is that English law and American Law took a radically different path after the more recent decisions of the Supreme Court and that came a lot later than "after the adoption of the second amendment. This needs to be highlighted I think and it is wrong to imply that there is no useful comparison to be made after the adoption of the second amendment. But by all means make suggestions here for how to reduce the length without cutting the content. Before and after text listed below would be useful.--Hauskalainen (talk) 02:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Item #1. Remove. I don't see why it has to be included elsewhere as it is already sufficiently covered in other parts of the article.

Item #2. Remove. Doesn't need to be covered anywhere else.

Item #3. Remove. Same as #2.

Item #4. Remove. Same as #2.

Comments particularly about #2-4. They're too interpretive and they are unsourced. The section will still be too long even after the removal.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is a link to Kilty's English Statutes, 1811, which shows that the English Bill of Rights applied to the American colonies, but in Maryland at least was superceded by Declaration of Rights 1776. TFD (talk) 18:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Without addressing your conclusion as to what the provided link means, what exactly is your point?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Legislation affecting the Bill of Rights by the U. K. parliament after 1776 has little relevance to the article. TFD (talk) 19:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The English History section is part of the background to show how the English Bill of Rights 1689 influenced the 2nd Amendment at the time it was adopted. Any statements in this section that refers to the thinking after the adoption distorts the chronological order of the article. While the English Bill of Rights definitely influenced the American Bill of Rights, it was not the only factor i.e. the 1st A. Future statements belong under another heading (English versus American law? / Later commentary), if at all. I’ll wait a few days for addition comments before editing.Grahamboat (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Hauskalainen’s Edit summery “Please take the paragraphs you want deleted to the TALK page and discuss with fellow editors the reasons for the proposed deletion. This is too much at once” does not make sense to me. Was it not discussed? Were not reasons illuminated? I respect Hauskalainen (s)he seems to have knowledge in English history. My contention is that the commits in question do not belong in the English history section of this article because they are contemporary, backward looking views of how modern theorists think things should have been. This section should give us a view on how the English Bill of Rights 1689 was perceived by Madison and others and to what extent they wanted to except or modify them. They certainly did not consider McDonald or Heller or what Parliament sequentially did, so why do they need to be mentioned here. We do not need to have a better understanding of the English Bill of Rights in this section; that belongs elsewhere. The only point here is what influence the English Bill of Rights had on the drafting of the 2nd A. Where am I going wrong? Grahamboat (talk) 03:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

We discussed the changes. You said a couple days of ago you were going to make them unless there were additional comments. There weren't. You made them. The only possible challenge Hauskalainen has, in my view, is that insufficient consensus was reached, but it would have been more appropriate to make such a comment here earlier rather than revert the changes.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

This article does need reduction of some of those sections which are slightly less center stage after Heller. And the background and commentary stuff does need a lot of cleaning up, neutral vetting and organizing. And so I would applaud efforts in those areas. But Grahamboat's deletions don't seem to have been discussed enough / specifically enough considering how huge they are. North8000 (talk) 11:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I am open to more discussion. I did post my explanation on Hauskalainen TALK. While the deletion was somewhat large, I felt the content was superfluous to the Pre-Constitution background area. I would not object if the content was placed elsewhere, Scholarly commentary or Controversy, come to mind. How much more discussion and in what time frame would you suggest we would need in order to qualify for a consensus? Grahamboat (talk) 16:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

To North8000: I already presented my views about the deletions, and it's not necessary to repeat them. I'll add only (1) I don't think the deletions were "huge"; (2) I have no objection to further discussion; (3) I think the deletions should remain during the discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

My words, if taken exactly at face value indicate what I meant.....nothing more is implied. It looks like we have the three top notch people here (Hauskalainen, Grahamboat and Bbb23 ) to improve and condense this area of the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the confusion in this debate is rooted in phraseology. The article starts, as most do, with a definition/explanation, expressed in modern terms, followed by a background analysis, “English history” and “Experience in America prior to the U.S. Constitution” continuing with “Drafting and adoption of the Constitution” etc etc. All of this flows in a logical sequential order. IMHO “English history” is a misnomer in the context of “Pre-Constitution background”. It is not any English history nor is it English history pertaining to firearms. It is not even the English history of the Bill of Rights 1689. The Pre-Constitution background in this section should relate to the influence the Bill of Rights 1689 (yes I know that is not the technically correct title) had on the Americans during the drafting of the 2nd Amendment. “English history as a sub-heading gives a false impression so that editors could include ideas about Heller, the UK Pistol Act etc. Heller is covered in the opening paragraphs and does not make sense in Pre-Constitution background and The UK pistol Act Is properly covered in the article Gun politics in the United Kingdom. Statements comparing UK gun law with US gun law or how Parliament modified the Bill of Rights 1689 could be in the article but do not seem logical under the Pre-Constitution background heading. They belong, IMHO, under the heading Scholarly commentary if at all. Therefore I suggest that we rename the sub-heading to “English History prior to the U.S. Constitution” or IMHO even better “The influence of the English Bill of Rights 1689”. The first suggestion would be congruent with the next section heading. The second suggestion would appear as follows:

Pre-Constitution background

The influence of the English Bill of Rights (1689)

Main article: Bill of Rights 1689

TEXT

Experience in America prior to the U.S. Constitution

TEXT

I invite your comments and suggestions.Grahamboat (talk) 23:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

As I have noted previously, the "history" and "comments" sections of this article badly need re-organizaiton and also some paring. This looks like a good step. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

If I understand properly, Graham just wants to rename the first sub-section. If so, I agree.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

That is precisely what I am suggesting; just renaming the first sub-section as above. Sorry to be so longwinded.Grahamboat (talk) 05:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Even though I'm confused as to exactly what the change is, I still say just do it. North8000 (talk) 14:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Done - 20:28, 5 December 2010 Grahamboat (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

One minor quibble that I should have raised but didn't notice until after your change. Do you think a shorter header would be better, say "Influence of English Bill of Rights (1689)"? I don't see why we need the definite articles in the header, and it is kinda long. It's no big deal, but I just thought I'd raise it belatedly.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree - SMP0328 beat me to it.Grahamboat (talk) 23:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

We're not getting very far in this. Hauskalainen has reverted the material deletions from the article. Although I have already stated my preferences for deletion, in all fairness, Hauskalainen has a point. In reviewing this thread, I don't see any real consensus for the removal of the material. Graham and I agree, but SMP0328 wanted to find other spots for at least some of the proposed deletions. North8000 wanted more discussion, and Hauskalainen expressed disapproval of the deletions.

Here's what I suggest, if Graham is willing. Why don't you put in the precise proposal for the Item #1 and let's talk about it. We can then do the same for the other three items. I personally think it's overkill and cumbersome, but I don't see how we're going to advance otherwise in the absence of additional opinions from more editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

OK let’s discuss. First of all there seems to be a consensus that this section relates to how the UK Bill of Rights influenced Madison and other drafters. Hauskalainen talks about “many American writers” and “many American sources get their facts wrong”. He does not state what writers and sources he is talking about. If they are pre-constitution then there might be a meaning, if, however, he is referring to later day commentary those comments do not belong in this section. Hauskalainen comments are too vague. What does he mean by “this is too much”? He needs to be specific. So point by point:

1. How did Heller, a 2008 SCOTUS decision, influence the Founding Fathers?

2. How can comparisons about the 1st decade of the 21st century be relevant?

3. What does “Parliament though has repeatedly increased restrictions” in later years have to do with the influence aspect?

4. What does the UK pistol Act of 1903 have to do with the Bill Of Rights influence?

So, IMHO, Hauskalainen needs to explain, point by point, how this material belongs in a discussion on the influence the Bill of Rights 1689 had on the Americans in 1789.Grahamboat (talk) 05:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

hey guys, I see you're discussing, which is good. I also see quite a few reverts on the article itself, which is not good. Leave the article be and figure it out here, then make the edits accordingly. It doesn't matter what version of the article is left up in the meantime. N419BH 07:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, but, unfortunately, the article version has become a moving target, depending on who's reverting at any given moment. Putting that problem aside, I would like to see Hauskalainen respond to each of the four items Graham listed just above. I don't see why that should be so hard. I'd also like to see other editors respond (I already agree with Graham and have said so more than once).--Bbb23 (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Lots of major changes and them getting reverted. Folks, how 'bout taking this in smaller pieces? North8000 20:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It’s not “lots of changes” it is really the same single issue. Do items 1 to 4 belong in the Pre-Constitution background section of this article or should they be placed elsewhere, if at all. I have not seen one argument supporting why 1-4 should be in this section. I agree with N419BH but my rhetorical question of how much time and consensus should be reconsidered. I wish Hauskalainen would return to answer 1-4. As I have suggested, I would be OK if 2-4 were inserted elsewhere as long as no opinions are expressed without proper references. I thought about doing it myself under “Later commentary” or “comparison of UK & US gun law after the constitution” but I am not convinced it is needed and Hauskalainen seems to be better informed on this issue. I have not made a revert without first leaving an explanation on TALK.Grahamboat (talk) 21:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Too many reverts - I'll leave it alone for a week and see what develops on TALKGrahamboat (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I had switched gears. Now I was just suggesting a way forward.....do one piece at time. North8000 15:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)

In this edit there was a lot removed. The main issue is that heading is wrong because the section discusses English law which influenced the Second Amendment (namely the Bill of Rights 1689) and then how the law in England and America has diverged. I therefore think that the heading needs to reflect the content and not the deletion of content to match the heading. This is what I have done. Some above have discussed that everything that happened in England that came after the U.S. Bill of Rights is irrelevant to US law, and that of course is true. But the more interesting fact is that the recent US Supreme Court decisions are what has really created the major divergence between English and American law relating to arms. There is a big issue about "rights" which is clearly very present in American discussions, but until recently the rights were vested in the States ability to form militias and personal rights were not so mch rights as allowances under law; the same position which prevailed in England for three centuries and still prevails today. It was the recent Supreme Court cases which marked a turning point against parallel English law. It is this which is important and which I think should be in this section of the article.

Point by point, here below is my argument. I am sorry if this is a bit loosely written but I am in a hurry and need to do other things..

This text was deleted.

Both the U.S. and English texts are about protecting a right to arms. In the U.S. case, until the first decade of the 21st century, it was believed to have been about solely preventing infringement by the federal government, while in the English case it protects the rights of Protestants from encroachment by the King. The English right could be modified by Parliament, and until recently it was believed the state legislatures could freely regulate firearms without any Second Amendment restrictions. However, the Supreme Court in Heller ruled that the Second Amendment protected the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), that protection was extended to protect against infringement by state and local governments.

My reason for reinstating: There were clear parallels in the interpretation of the meaning of the protections in both laws which were quite similar. One kept the King at bay from arms regulation and the other kept the Federal government at bay. The recent Heller and Chicago decisions took a fundamentally different interpretation than all previous decisions and it was thus revisionist. This text explains how the law in the USA has diverged markedly in terms of legal principals in the Heller and MacDonald decisions. This is a fundamentally important divergence and needs to be in the English Law section. (It is after all where the laws diverge from each other).

More text removed in a later paragraph

Parliament though has repeatedly increased restrictions on firearms and other defensive weapons to make the legal possession of them virtually impossible. These actions have generally reflected the British public's concerns over their potential misuse as offensive weapons. Heller noted that the American right is not absolute and is subject to legislative controls preventing access to firearms by felons and the mentally ill. However, the American position of a "constitutional right" rather than a "freedom" subject to regulation means that the liberty to own, hold and use a firearm in the United States for self defense cannot be amended simply by changing statutory law, as happened in Great Britain and for many years by each of the state legislatures. The newly interpreted constitutional position is also a factor.

Reason for reinstating. Although legal principles were the same until very recently, that does not mean that the laws are the same. This paragraph explains why American and British laws were so different even though the legal principles were the same. Parliament clearly has acted to restrict access to certain firearms (as it is entitled to do constitutionally) and has done so under pressure from public opinion. it has gone further than most U.S. states in restricting access to weapons because clearly public opinion is not in favor of similar gun controls in America. The more important issue is that explained at the end of the text in that because the recent Supreme Court decisions have raised the "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" text to be interpreted as creating or preserving a natural right to arms, and has decided that a gun in the home is an "American right", the laws in England and America are now fundamentally different and, what is more, needs a constitutional change in order to amend that (which is not the case in England).

And this following text was also removed.

With regard to arms rights, some American writers have ignored the evidence in the text of the bill which shows it to be a restoration of lost rights to Protestants and that Catholics already had the freedom to bear arms, preferring instead to see religious discrimination in gun rights. Others have similarly ignored the earlier game laws that had already severely restricted firearms to those with gaming rights, preferring to see it as an act of socioeconomic discrimination. The game laws had not interfered with the basic duty of certain English people to keep arms for militia service but it was the caching of large quantities of weapons by Catholics that was deemed to be potentially threatening during transition from the old militia to the new.

Reason for reinstating. Many American textbooks on this subject are clearly erroneous and this needs to be balanced out. The issue of the Bill of Rights creating a right for Protestants and not for Catholics (i.e. another piece of Anti-Catholic discrimination), which I have seen in many American texts, is a case in point. You only have to read the Bill properly in its full context (as the text in the Wikipedia article now does) which clearly shows that Catholics were left armed and it was Protestants who had complained about being disarmed and who were winning back a lost "right" (more properly a "freedom") to have arms. The Bill simply puts Protestants back in the same position as Catholics and took the right to disarm away from the monarch and left it with the Parliament. I was intrigued that American writers repeated the erroneous claim of a discriminatory law by Parliament whereas no British authors seem to do so. The Bill of Rights is certainly discriminatory against Catholics in many respects, but the issue of arms is NOT one of them. Clearly there is a habit of certain American authors putting too much faith in some of their secondary sources and not checking the primary source (or doing so scantily). Lastly on the game laws. The American settlers would have known about the English game laws which were relevant to English law on weaponry but New World settlers could safely forget about them.

All-in-all I think the deleted content does say something which is relevant to the Second Amendment and which is not really mentioned anywhere else in the same context. I have agreed that the section is too long, but maybe the solution is to move some of the detail to the footnotes. I have therefore intend to reinstate the text with a modified section header. --Hauskalainen (talk) 23:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to address your points right now. Maybe Graham or someone else can do it later. But what comes through in your explanations above is your view of the world and your wish to set the record straight. In some of the deleted paragraphs, there were NO sources at all to even support the assertions. You changed the section header so that your views could be expressed without running afoul of what the section was supposed to be about. You have a real POV problem here that is simply not acceptable, which may be seen by some of your assertions:

• "This is a fundamentally important divergence and needs to be in the English Law section."
• "the recent Supreme Court decisions have raised the 'SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED' text to be interpreted as creating or preserving a natural right to arms, and has decided that a gun in the home is an 'American right'"
• "Many American textbooks on this subject are clearly erroneous and this needs to be balanced out."
• "Clearly there is a habit of certain American authors putting too much faith in some of their secondary sources and not checking the primary source (or doing so scantily)."

This is not a place for you to write your thesis on the Second Amendment.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not insensitive to the fact that much of what is written is not backed up by any references. I have come to this article by accident and found numerous inaccuracies in the English History section. I have tried to correct them and have provided references to primary sources when clearly so many American authors have been relying on some very dubious secondary sources. You do have the fortune of having lawyers on the Supreme Court who do look carefully at the historical background and I have to say that they have the same opinion as me and have ignored to some extend the claims made by certain American authors. I am not being "anti-" anyone here; I am just pointing out the facts. Nor am I trying to insert my POV into the article. I do think that most editors here are interested in the issues of law and its drivers. Take for example the point about the issue of the recent cases in the Supreme Court. Most commentators have noted that these were landmark decisions and marked a significant shift. I don't think it unreasonable to point out that changing that view can only happen by another Supreme Court decision the other way or a by a constitutional amendment. This is a big divergence from previous law and very different from English law which, by and large, does not grant people "rights" as there is usually a balance of rights that needs to be struck. It would be great to have a citation for these things but the absence of a citation does not mean that the statements are incorrect. If there are statement that you think are incorrect, I'll welcome any discussion here to try and get to a consensus.--Hauskalainen (talk) 01:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's simply not how it works at Wikipedia. Even assuming a statement is correct, if it's not verified by a reliable source, it must be removed.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Have removed the uncited political commentary of Hauskalainen. This is not how Wikipedia works. Yaf (talk) 02:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

How so? Political? The text is surely pointing out the facts to those who may not be aware of them. I am willing to be flexible about the form of the wording, but the facts are I believe as I have stated them. What of the content do you find "political"? (by which I presume POV). If there are references missing for factual statements it would be more helpful if you would tell us which statements you regard as suspicious. Deleting great chunks of text on a pretext is not very constructive. Please engage.--Hauskalainen (talk) 19:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

This article is about the 2nd Amendment, it is not about the divergence of US gun law from the British law as Hauskalainen seems to want. You do not change the heading to fit political content that was inserted to make a point about legal parallels of the two countries. Hauskalainen wants the make a point about how Heller “took a fundamentally different interpretation” of the 2nd A. His premise is incorrect. It is true that SILVEIRA v. LOCKYER took the same view but US v Emerson and Parker v. District of Columbia, the by-partisan Senate COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY (1982) and thirty-nine states supported an Individual Right way before Heller. So Heller is only a landmark decision in that it was the first time SCOTUS fully reviewed the issue, not for its conclusion. While Hauskalainen will be able to find sources to support his theory they will not be mainstream as even the Brady Campaign now accepts an Individual Right take. The main point here is that none of later day commentary belongs in the background material leading up to the adoption.Grahamboat (talk) 21:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Folks, here's what might be the the big picture answer for this. Let's get it written and (in this area) pared down in a way that folks consensus is well written and accurate/likely-sourcable, germane and that y'all agree on, and then get it sourced. Can be tagged in the meantime, and eventually, anything that is unsourcable can be deleted. Sincerely, North8000 21:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• Alert. Aside from what to do with the article, I now can't figure out the current status of the article, i.e., is it per Graham, per Hauskalainen, or some other variation? This is getting out of hand, which troubles me more than anything else. I hope someone else can retrace all the changes.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Right now it is per Grahamboat 20:04, 6 December 2010 but of course that is subject to change. I am not sure what North8000 means by pared down in a way that folks consensus is well written etc. To me it is acceptable as it is now although I would prefer paring it down further. I find Hauskalainen contribs to not be germane to this section on pre-constitutional background as I have stated and explained numerous times above. I would not object if Hauskalainen’s “divergence of US gun law from the British law” is placed elsewhere but it does not belong in pre-constitutional background. Do you want me to move it? The problem is that it reads like political commentary and is mostly unsourced.Grahamboat (talk) 05:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is how Hauskalainen’s unedited contribution would appear. I am not recommending this, but would accept it in the spirit of compromise.

Scholarly commentary

Comparison of UK & US gun law

In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court did not accept a collective right view, remarking that the English right at the time of the passing of the English Bill of Rights was "clearly an individual right, having nothing whatsoever to do with service in the militia" and that it was a right not to be disarmed by the crown and was not the granting of a new right to have arms.

Both the U.S. and English texts are about protecting a right to arms. In the U.S. case, until the first decade of the 21st century, it was believed to have been about solely preventing infringement by the federal government, while in the English case it protects the rights of Protestants from encroachment by the King. The English right could be modified by Parliament, and until recently it was believed the state legislatures could freely regulate firearms without any Second Amendment restrictions. However, the Supreme Court in Heller ruled that the Second Amendment protected the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), that protection was extended to protect against infringement by state and local governments.

Parliament though has repeatedly increased restrictions on firearms and other defensive weapons to make the legal possession of them virtually impossible. These actions have generally reflected the British public's concerns over their potential misuse as offensive weapons. Heller noted that the American right is not absolute and is subject to legislative controls preventing access to firearms by felons and the mentally ill. However, the American position of a "constitutional right" rather than a "freedom" subject to regulation means that the liberty to own, hold and use a firearm in the United States for self defense cannot be amended simply by changing statutory law, as happened in Great Britain and for many years by each of the state legislatures.

With regard to arms rights, some American writers have ignored the evidence in the text of the bill which shows it to be a restoration of lost rights to Protestants and that Catholics already had the freedom to bear arms, preferring instead to see religious discrimination in gun rights. Others have similarly ignored the earlier game laws that had already severely restricted firearms to those with gaming rights, preferring to see it as an act of socioeconomic discrimination. The game laws had not interfered with the basic duty of certain English people to keep arms for militia service but it was the caching of large quantities of weapons by Catholics that was deemed to be potentially threatening during transition from the old militia to the new.

As England progressively transferred the right to maintain order against internal and external threats to special bodies such as the police and the armed forces, Parliament began to restrict criminals' access to guns through legislation such as the Pistols Act.

Grahamboat (talk) 05:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks pretty good. Except that I think "until the first decade of the 21st century, it was believed to have been about solely preventing infringement by the federal government" is erroneous. The real long term debate (relative to this) was 2 overlapping questions: Individual right vs. just for service in a militia. And, in case it's the latter, "are everyday citizens a part of the "militia"". Only a small group of relatively expert people even knew the "restricts federal only" question existed. Came to the forefront a bit more in the 2-year post-Heller-pre-McDonald period. North8000 11:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the federal government issue is miscast. Once Heller interpreted the right, then the question became whether it applied only to the federal government. That is, of course, true of any right enumerated in the Bill of Rights.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. The proposed text is unacceptable for the simple reason that it lacks sources. In many cases, it is unsourced without a "citation needed" template, and in many other cases, it has the template. I'm not even sure why templates were inserted in certain places but not in others, but it amounts to the same thing. If there are no sources, it can't be said. Period.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Totally unacceptable. Text is a POV commentary making many outlandish claims that are entirely unsourced. For example, "These actions have generally reflected the British public's concerns over their potential misuse as offensive weapons.", says who? All the individuals I know who have left the UK to live in the US have stated it is not about misuse, but, rather, is about more nanny state regulations. Hardly the same thing. Pushing such unsourced POV commentary whilst trying to push an agenda is entirely against Wikipedia principles. Yaf (talk) 13:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Folks, let's start with what you think is OK and likely to be sourcable. If you agree on that, then it will be sourcable. And then get it sourced. Otherwise this process will be gridlocked. North8000 14:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree as a matter of process and as a matter of policy. You want to include something in an article, find a source first. Sometimes, when I see someone add unsourced information to an article, I go out and find a source for it rather than delete it, but that's only when (1) I have the time, (2) I find the addition to be particularly noteworthy, and (3) I believe it's a helpful addition to the article. For me, those conditions aren't met here. Therefore, the burden is on the editor who wants to include it to find reliable sources for it before s/he includes it.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Well if someone disagrees with the content or thinks it wrong/ unsourcable, then we both end up at the same place. But otherwise we might need to agree to disagree. What I think you are saying is to reject ideas at the talk page draft stage for not being cited, even if (AT THAT EARLY STAGE) you do not disagree with it, and think that it is sourcable.North8000 15:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Your reading of what I said is not at all what I intended. To be clearer on one aspect of what I said, I don't find the addition noteworthy or useful.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry that I misunderstood. Sincerely, North8000 15:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Apology appreciated but unnecessary. If you misunderstood, perhaps the fault was mine, or at least perhaps others also misunderstood. Your expression of what you thought I meant permitted greater clarification, which is helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Yaf, Grahamboat, and Bbb23 that the information in question does not belong in the article (especially in the "Pre-Constitution background" section). If Hauskalainen and other editors would like to work on the text on this talk page and find sources, then that is fine. But I don't think it should be put back in the article until it is completely sourced and there is a consensus that it is germane to the article/section. --Hamitr (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Grahamboat's opinion is:

Paragraph #1. Heller is well cover elsewhere and is redundant here.

Paragraph # 2. the first sentence is not sourced and partially incorrect. The second sentence is also not sourced and partially incorrect.

Paragraph #3, is not sourced and is political commentary.

Paragraph #4, is poorly sourced and does not relate to the article

Paragraph #5. has no relation to the 2nd A. Grahamboat (talk) 18:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

(Outdent)

There is truth in the statement made above that I have added text to the article as to how and why English and American law have diverged. The claim is made above that this is not relevant, but I disagree. As a reader who came to this subject knowing little about the Second Amendment but knowing quite a lot of English history, it was for me quite baffling to see that American Law had a particular paragraph in English Law as its source and yet, though neither law has been repealed, the two countries today have very different legal positions as to arms. One has elevated gun ownership and use to the exalted status of a fundamental right and the other has taken quite the opposite direction. All based on fundamentally the same legal foundation. I think that the readership deserves an explanation as to how and why this has happened. If we can agree that this is a moot point worthy of explanation then I am willing to try to discuss here how we can do so briefly and in a neutral fashion. If there are disputed "facts" then we can see how much referencing we can get to support either side of the argument. I do think the exercise is worth doing. --Hauskalainen (talk) 23:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Before anyone gets exercised about it, I just realized that "moot point" cold mean "irrelevent" in American English and that is not my meaning at all. See http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/moot and http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/moot_point --Hauskalainen (talk) 23:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Why don’t you try rewriting your vision of why the English and American law diverged using better sources and with the idea of placing it under the heading “Scholarly commentary/Comparison (or Divergence) of UK & US gun law”? It might be interesting but doesn’t belong under Pre-constitutional background. Better to place it here first.--Grahamboat (talk) 00:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

English vs. British

At another talk page an anon has claimed that "English" should be changed to "British", even regarding items prior to the founding of the United Kingdom, because Wales and Ireland were then part of it. Feel free to comment on this claim at this and/or the other talk page. SMP0328. (talk) 04:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Since the article refers to “Influence of the English Bill of Rights of 1689” I would leave it "English". Grahamboat (talk) 06:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

They have eternal wars going on at several articles regarding terminology for what's in the past and present UK. Sometimes people carry it to other articles by searching for uses of the involved terms. We should try to stay miles away from such arguments. North8000 (talk) 11:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Meaning of "Well Regulated Militia"

footnote 137, I don't even see that there is a page 361 in Merkel's book _The Militia and the Right to Arms, Or, How the Second Amendment Fell Silent_.

That said, I don't like this phrase: "The term 'regulated' means 'disciplined' or 'trained'". "Means"=true fact. Merkel's book was written in 2002, and the Heller case wasn't resolved until 2008. The Amazon writeup for Merkel's book actually uses the word "thesis".

SCOTUS did contend the disciplined/trained definition in 2008. I think this first sentence should be removed and the following sentence re: Heller should become the first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.213.140 (talk) 01:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Heller created the definitive answer (with respect to US law and legal) to many open questions. Much of this article has not been updated. Most importantly, the question you discuss has less relevance now because Heller said that the right is dependent on membership in a militia, whatever militia means. Not that it isn't still an important topic. North8000 (talk) 01:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe North8000 meant not dependent on membership in a militia. SMP0328. (talk) 04:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Dred Scott

Why the heck is there a section on Dred Scott in this article? Balonkey (talk) 03:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Probably needs a mention because it is a Supreme Court decision. Article needs a lot of updating. Due to the usual reasons (like it's a lot of hard work to do it well) plus, until a few months ago, updates were blocked by a relentless POV warrior. North8000 (talk) 03:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I get that it's a Supreme Court decision, I just can't tell what it has to do with the Second Amendment. I'm holding out hope that maybe there is some tie in I don't see or that was once there and then edited out or who knows what. Or maybe should just be deleted. Also FWIW I kinda thought this page would have more warring than it seems to have. Balonkey (talk) 05:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC).

Oh wait. I didn't see that this was like the 30th archived talk page. Shows how green I am! Balonkey (talk) 05:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Now that you pointed it out, I have no idea what it is doing in here. Maybe someone else knows. If we can't add an explanation of relevance, we should delete it. North8000 (talk) 11:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Although not mentioned in Heller, Dred Scott got a mention in United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Parker v. District of Columbia “Although Dred Scott is as infamous as it was erroneous in holding that African-Americans are not citizens, this passage expresses the view, albeit in passing, that the Second Amendment contains a personal right”. Grahamboat (talk) 23:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I see no good reason for it being in the article and have removed it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Cool. North8000 (talk) 01:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a good decision too. Balonkey (talk) 02:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

A few questions:

- How does this affect non-firearms weapons today? Does one have a right to own a hailbried or flail?

- What does "Arms" mean when it comes to guns? the entire gun? the fireing mechanism? The bullet? 69.132.79.61 (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

This Talk page is for discussing improvements to the article or problems with the article, not for asking questions about firearms. You could try asking your questions at the Reference Desk.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Had an edit conflict....my answer was similar: Good questions, but too complex to try to answer here and this is not the place. But keep asking elsewhere! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Text section formatting

Originally, the section had cquotes, which are not permitted by WP:MOSQUOTE. I removed them, but then ran into problems with another editor over how to format it without cquotes. We reached a compromise (that I don't like - and probably the other editor doesn't like either - but that's the nature of compromises). Then, yet another editor put back the original version saying it looked better. I reverted the change, but welcome comments as to how to do this. I should add that the differences between the two texts are trivial and I don't even know why we're making a fuss out of this in the article in the first place.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Would Anastrophe's edit be permissible if it used the "quote" format, rather than "cquote"? SMP0328. (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't figure this out thoroughly, but first, if there any content question within the quote, it should simply be correct / per the source. On the punctuation, it would seem simply straight quotes around the quote is the norm. North8000 (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

(moving my comment into thread) i cleaned up the text section, improving readability, and bringing it into conformance with all other bill of rights articles. Bbb23 quickly reverted it, claiming that "cquotes are not permitted per WP:MOSQUOTE". this is incorrect; it is not a rule, it is a guideline, and it's far better to conform this article the articles for the first, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth amendments (not to mention the eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, sixteenth, eighteenth, nineteenth, twenty-first, twenty-second, twenty-third, twenty-fifth, twenty-sixth, and twenty-seventh amendments), than to have it deviate from that pretty well established style. Anastrophe (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

the reason the differences in text are material is because they have been a matter of significant historical and legal debate over the decades. that's not my assessment, it's an assessment based on reading hundreds of sources. personally, i think only the text as codified in the extant version of the constitution on display in the national archives is wholey relevant, because all citizens have free access to it. but that's my opinion. i still maintain that using cquotes in conformance with the majority of amendment articles is preferable to divergence from that style - unless someone wants to go to the trouble of "correcting" all the other amendment articles based on a non-rule of style. Anastrophe (talk) 23:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

i just had a look at the discussion page for cquote, and to say that it has a long history of being reviled and defended is an understatement. while on a tenuously technical basis the individual amendments could be defined as pullquotes from the Constitution, it seems that cquotes are fundamentally a bad idea. okay, granted. the problem is - as previously mentioned - that nearly all of the amendment articles have used them, which has created a 'sub' style across them. returned to the use of cquotes here was largely to maintain conformance with the other articles (and, i do think it improves readability). but from 30,000 feet, it would seem it would be better to take on the task of conforming all those other amendment articles to a more desirable format for the text of the amendment. that, unfortunately, is not a project i'm up for at the moment! so - it boils down to this: maintain a largely uniform style between the amendment articles and keep the cquotes; drop the cquotes and be out of conformance with the substyle, but closer to conformance with the MOS; adjust all the other amendments to conform to the MOS. bottom line: i need to lay off the afternoon coffee. Anastrophe (talk) 23:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Personally, IMHO conformance with other amendment articles would not even be a consideration, much less a priority. North8000 (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the cquotes are awful. Granted it's not a policy, but a guideline, but as Anastrophe found out, it's frowned upon. As for other articles, just because many articles do something wrong doesn't justify perpetuating it. The cquotes can be removed from the other articles as editors get to it. I've been removing cquotes in other articles when I see them.

In response to SPM0328's question, the quote template just makes a block quote, which is what was already there. I think what Anastrophe doesn't like is the aesthetics of the bolding of the differences, which, frankly, I don't like, either, but, as I stated earlier, it was a compromise.

I just wanted inline quotes (because they're short) with no highlighting of the differences other than the textual description (capitalization, punctuation). I'm happy with the quote template without highlighting the differences though - it's the highlighting, in my view, that is ugly. I also think that block quotes and the "headings" (Congress and The States) Anastrophe put in would look fine.

I'm not sure we have any consensus on this going forward, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy with the changes SMP0328 just made from an aesthetic perspective. I made a few minor changes without changing the framework. I'd also recommend capitalizing "states" but didn't make that change.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

In light of the changes Bbb23 and I just made, do we now have consensus? SMP0328. (talk) 01:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

We may have to wait for Anastrophe to recover from overcaffeination before we find out. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 01:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

i'm fine with whatever changes you guys decide(d) on. i just happen to _not_ find the cquotes particularly offensive, while finding the bolded, bracketed text ugly as heck, and hard to discern clearly - particularly when the two different sentences were streamed together within the graf... Anastrophe (talk) 07:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Capitalization

BTW, what do you think about capitalizing states?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I used to do that, but was told capitalizing the "s" was wrong if the word isn't starting a sentence or part of a State's full name (e.g., State of New York). SMP0328. (talk) 02:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Not sure who told you that, but whether it's collective or singular, if you're referring to the governments themselves, my view is it's capitalized. Here are two examples: "By the time the States ratified the Fourteenth Amendment, public schools had become relatively common." Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393, 411 (2007). "In order to overturn Chisholm, Congress quickly passed the Eleventh Amendment and the States ratified it speedily." Federal Maritime Comm'n v. South Carolina State Ports Authority, 535 U.S. 743, 752 (2002).--Bbb23 (talk) 02:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I was told this about two years ago. SMP0328. (talk) 02:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything in that discussion that addresses this particular issue. If you agree that the State of New York is correct and the State of California is correct, then if you say that the State of California and the State of New York ratified something, it follows that saying the States ratified something should be correct because the "of California" and "of New York" are assumed. I'll go ahead and change it and we'll see if I get any flak for it.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you plan to change elsewhere in the article "state" to "State" when referring to one of the United States? SMP0328. (talk) 04:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

A good question, which I wish you hadn't asked. I started looking through the article and found many instances of the word "state" or "states" (if only the article weren't so LONG). Some seemed different from the ones I just changed, not so clear-cut (at least to my eyes). Others looked closer. For reasons I don't clearly understand, I didn't feel like changing any, perhaps because, ironically and generally, I think Wikipedians overcapitalize (just as they overuse commas). So, I'll punt. Are there particular instances you believe should be changed?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

If you noticed, I did make a few capitalization changes since my last post. I decided I was being too wishy-washy about the whole thing. However, SMP0328, I don't agree with your change (but I didn't revert it). In the instance you picked, the usage is about state governments generally, not about a particular state or states specifically. Therefore, it should be lower case.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

How is my capitalization any different from the capitalization in the Text section? When should "state" be capitalized (other than at the beginning of a sentence)? SMP0328. (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

When you're referring to a specific state government (the state acting as a state) or a group of state governments (the states acting as states).--Bbb23 (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

So if the action is by the government, use "State"; if the action is by another party, use "state"? SMP0328. (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Not exactly, if the action is by a specific state government, then use "State" because it's the same thing as saying the State of New York. If the reference isn't to a specific state government, then use "state". Or maybe we should leave it inconsistent because I'm not sure that everyone would agree with me anyway. Long live chaos! :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 21:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's easier for everyone if the capitalization is consistent regarding State governments. Otherwise, all we'll have is chaos. SMP0328. (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that consistency is more desirable. The problem is that you won't have consistency on Wikipedia unless there's some clear guideline or policy on the issue, which doesn't exist and which, cynically, I don't believe is possible. At the moment, all you have is my say-so and the Supreme Court cases I cite to back me up.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Early state court decisions

I'd like to remove the section entirely and put the link to the information in the See also section. The article is too long, and the section is really unnecessary. The article is not supposed to be a historical treatise.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm kind of neutral on your proposal. On the "pro" side is the good arguments that you made. On the "con" side, possibly a condensed version would be good to have.... due to there being so few SCOTUS cases on this in history, info on state supreme court cases might be useful. North8000 (talk) 15:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, North, but I really see the state court cases as academic at best. Given your neutrality on the issue, the fact that no one has objected in almost two weeks, and the length of the article, I'll remove the section.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Cool. North8000 (talk) 22:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Bill Of Rights defunct in Britain

Its unreasonable to justify this Amendment as being based on the British Bill Of Rights without mentioning that the relevant part of that has been defunct for at least the last 57 years since the Prevention of Crime Act 1953. 92.29.125.152 (talk) 12:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

This article covers the amendment, it doesn't "justify" it. But I don't think that the dependency that you are implying is even hypothesized in the article. North8000 (talk) 13:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with North8000. There is neither mention of “justify” nor any implication hereof. Therefore it is not relevant what happened in the UK 164 years later. Grahamboat (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

English Bill of Rights subsection

The paragraph that begins "The English Bill of Rights statement about the right to have arms...." is stating conclusions rather than describing the arguments. Phrases such as "gives the false impression", "it is clear that the bill was asserting", "reveals that Catholics ... already had the freedom to have arms", and "which both codify an existing right and do not create a new one" (from the follow-up after the blockquote) indicate that this section of text is promoting a particular POV. The only citations on it are the source for the quote, and confirmation of what the Supremes have said; they do not support these assertions as objective and self-evident facts. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to the wonderful world of unsourced assertions in the English Bill of Rights section. I support almost anything that removes unsourced content from it. As I've stated before, it's not really an encyclopedic section - it's a thesis.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm all for accurate and encyclopedic. 90% of Wikipedia content doesn't have cites explicitly supporting it. I'm not for somebody selectively knocking out their choice of the 90% simply for not being explicitly sourced. I think much of this section was written by Husk.....who seems very expert on English history topics but light on using sources. We should try to figure out what it and isn't accurate/sourcable and proceed accordingly. North8000 (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's one thing to make commonplace assertions without sourcing them, but the statements at issue are not. And I agree with Jason that the phrasing of the assertions is POV and certainly not encyclopedic. We simply cannot rely on the supposed expertise of an editor. That's at best WP:OR.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with everything you said in this last post. But IMHO it did not address or refute what I said nor comment on my suggestion on how to proceed. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to be clearer. In my view, the material challenged by Jason should be removed. If someone else wants to save it by rewording and sourcing it, that's up to them, but the section and the article are too long as it is. Much of the material is unnecessary.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

We should agree on a deadline for finding RS for that subsection. After that deadline any material therein that's unsourced should be removed. SMP0328. (talk) 21:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. One week.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Does everyone else agree to a one-week deadline? SMP0328. (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the section has issues. But I'm against anything as categorical / ham-handed as the above. North8000 (talk) 22:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe a one-month deadline is better. That would provide sufficient time to find RS and provide a point at which Bbb23 can remove the challenged subsection. SMP0328. (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

One week is good. _WikiMan^One 22:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Who's looking for the sources? How about one week with an extension of time if an editor says he or she is looking? Or, if that's no good, how about two weeks? One month seems awfully long, and if no one is actually doing anything, what's the point? Oh, yes, and I think that North should get extra points for teaching me a new word (ham-handed).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Give it a week if someone is actually looking for sources, if nobody is looking for sources, just take it out. _WikiMan^One 23:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that Bbb23 and WikiManOne's final posts made the same suggestion, and I'm cool with that. Plus thanks to Bbb23 for the extra brownie points.

I think that the statement that the US Constitution affirms existing rights (vs. granting new ones) is considered a "sky is blue" statement. However, this section isn't really about that and I assume that that is covered elsewhere in the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

If I understand properly, North, WikiMan, and I all agree on a week (I still would be amenable to extending if an editor says he's working on it and needs a little more time). Is that okay with you, SMP0328?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

One week to begin adding sourcing. If sourcing is being added, extend to a month. SMP0328. (talk) 01:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

OK with me. North8000 (talk) 02:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Given that SMP0328 kindly volunteered me to remove the material if not sourced, in case I forget, someone please remind me.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Let us know when you're going away on vacation. So we can have a wiki-meeting here while you're gone and volunteer you for a lot of stuff.  :-) North8000 (talk) 03:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I support one week - assuming Bbb23 has the time he needs. Grahamboat (talk) 20:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

(Outdent). The problem is that there are supposedly reliable sources who have written that the English Bill of Rights was discriminatory s regards "gun rights" (giving rights to Protestants only). I agree that you could get that impression IF you are ingorant of your English history and if you don't read the Bill of Rights carefully. These misimpressions of the law only come from American sources that are, frankly, obsessessed with guns and a supposed right to have guns. The text in the article is quite long because it shows IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS ITSELF (so it is not true that the material is unsourced) that Bill of rights is NOT creating a new right (it was an ancient liberty that already existed and which had been held by Catholics as well as Protestants, but had been withdrawn by the King in respect of Protestant). The Bill of rights mentions Catholics being armed (though it uses the term "papists" which is a synonym). The Bill of rights WAS discriminatory against Catholics, but not in the case of arms rights. We cannot have material in the article that ONLY declares that the Bill of righs created a right to arms and that this right was given only to Protestants. That is what the article used to say before that text was added. It is historically incorrect. And POV. Therefore there has to be text which is balanced. I am agreeable to amending the text so long as we preserve the historical truth (or at least the mainstream views of what the historical evidence tells us, as per NPOV policy).Hauskalainen (talk) 13:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest that any changes be discussed here. I don't like the idea that there could be sweeping changes made without discussion first. We need some more precision about the changes desired. For example bringing here some before and after versions for discussion. That way we can all see what the impact is.Hauskalainen (talk) 14:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that we should deal with the gorilla in the living room here in a fun and friendly way. This is based on 6-7 months of observation, but too much has happened here for me to claim to for-sure know the situation, i.e. I could be all wrong. First, IMHO good articles get written from expertise/consensus (with sourcing/sourcability in mind) and THEN sourced. Good material does not just arise out of the random noise of sourcing, which says things that are all over the board. Such sounds un-wikipedian, but really isn't, because it ends up at the same place, which is sourced material. I think that Hauskalainen has a high level of expertise regarding stuff on the east side of the pond, especially historical. He/she could probably write stuff in that area that is more expert and reliable that many wp:"RS"s. However, he/she often writes in a professorial tone which is un-wikipedian...sort of "let me tell you how it is" vs. "here is sourced information" Also he/she does not emphasize and end up with sufficient sourcing of material (which is where it needs to end up) If I'm not mistaken, I think that Hauskalainen wrote much of the material that we are talking about. So what we may have is accurate material which needs to have the above items remedied, and also (due to developments in the last few years) some condensation, and keeping the above in mind might help the process. I think that we have a good team here to accomplish that. North8000 (talk) 14:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

For starters, I suggest removing “(which it was not), (which is false), (which arguably it did not, and certainly not a constitutional one)” as they add unnecessary double emphasis. The quote “The fifth and last auxiliary right...” is not supported by the reference; is it Blackstone’s? I do not know why the Heller reference is included in this section as it is well covered elsewhere; but I don’t strongly object. Grahamboat (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Is the discussion now closed? Grahamboat (talk) 02:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I got a headache and lost interest once no one reminded me to do anything. I must confess I haven't examined the changes, but I wouldn't wait for me to do that. Are you okay with the result (whatever it was)? (My apologies for being flip, but with articles like this one, humor is the only thing that helps.)--Bbb23 (talk) 02:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Those proposed changes in Grahamboat's Feb 15 post look good to me. North8000 (talk) 04:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Grahamboat (talk) 06:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Later commentary/Historical models of interpretation

I propose to merge “Historical models of interpretation” into “Later commentary” as much of the content is the same. In light of Heller, I would also remove much of the “collective rights” (civic) opinions as being moot. Unnecessary political rhetoric makes this article too long. I believe in TALK before EDIT. Grahamboat (talk) 21:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

It needs that kind of work.

Heller rendered many things moot which I think should still be covered to some extent, even if vastly reduced coverage. North8000 (talk) 23:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Since no objections have appeared in a week and the article is too long I will merge a condensed version of “Historical models of interpretation” into “Later commentary” removing any purely academic opinions. I believe “Meaning of the ‘right to bear arms’” needs the same treatment. Grahamboat (talk) 05:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Again many debates were rendered a moot point by Heller/MacDonald. But we should still cover them is a historical context. Some of the points which they discussed are roots of Heller/MacDonald. North8000 (talk) 12:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The Text should be emphasized using one of the quote templates

Considering the text of the 2nd amendment is only 1 sentence and appeared to be buried within some muddle. The short text of amendment should have some emphasis. As all other amendment in the us constitution. A user named SMP0328 removed my cquote and claimed improper use. I disagree would like to discuss what is was labeled improper use of cquote use. My argument is this article is titled Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and in fact the portion I cquote formatted is the short actual text. The rest of the article is history and a lot of political opinion. This a controversial topic, for example the Heller vs District of columbia section is rather large. This article as a whole may require a NPOV check.0pen$0urce (talk) 18:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:MOSQUOTE ("Do not enclose block quotations in quotation marks (and especially avoid decorative quotation marks in normal use, such as those provided by the cquote template, which are reserved for pull quotes).") almost never permits the use of cquote in articles. Unfortunately, many of the amendment articles misuse it, which is no basis for misusing it here. Even the cquote documentation, which you link to, says not to use it (in red, yet). (I don't address your completely separate NPOV argument.)--Bbb23 (talk) 19:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

"("Do not enclose block quotations in quotation marks (and especially avoid decorative quotation marks in normal use, such as those provided by the cquote template, which are reserved for pull quotes).")" Block quote is a long quote. This quote is used to displayed pull the actual text of the 2nd amendment from the article. Again this is a controversial topic but I have a notion there is a lack of NPOV behind some of the edits here.0pen$0urce (talk) 01:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm no expert on the proper way here, but those huge quote marks, one of them detached from the end of the text which it marks look distracting.North8000 (talk) 01:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Open, forgive me, but your reasoning makes no sense. I'm reverting back to the way it was before you changed the quotes and before you moved the text. I strongly suggest you gain consensus on this before you do anything further. There is a lot of history, not only in this article, but also about this article.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that this is at a point where putting them in would need some type of consensus. I don't have a strong opinion, but I tend towards avoiding the giant quote marks. North8000 (talk) 11:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

While I was doing something unrelated to this topic, I noticed that Open had posted a comment on SMP0328's Talk page about the cquote template. Open quoted this sentence from the template: "Pull-quotes work best when used with short quotes, and at the start or end of a section, to help emphasize the content of the section." Not sure why he (sorry if I have the gender wrong) hasn't quoted that sentence here because it's his best argument for using cquote. So, I'd like to go into my memory (not necessarily perfect) of the history of the Text section. Remember, there are two versions of the text of the amendment given in the article, so that makes it different (unique?) from the other amendment articles.

I believe when I first looked at the cquote business, the article used cquotes for both versions. I objected, not only to the use of cquotes, but even to the use of blockquotes or the normal quote template, and I edited the article to put the quotes inline with quotation marks. My change encountered a fair amount of resistance, at least by some, and, eventually, a consensus was reached as to the current version. It sets the text off by using the quote template but doesn't draw as much attention to it as a pull quote would ("distracting", as North puts it).

My main objection to using cquotes in this article is twofold. First, we have two versions of the text. If we had only one, the use of one cquote at the top of the section might not be as bad. Second, and related to the first, the section is short. The argument in the cquote template documentation about emphasis is more compelling if you have a cquote at the beginning and then a significantly longer section so you "emphasize the content of the section" by using the cquote. Indeed, this is a good reason why cquotes shouldn't be used in other amendment articles when the only thing in the section is the text itself. How much emphasis do we need?

I hope this background and analysis help explain my position on the issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

You provided good input, I came to look up the actual quote from the Constitution and it appears somewhat buried. The only discernible difference from the ratified (necessity unknown) and federal is capitalization. Again this is a controversial topic which I have no position on, but I also have concerns some of the edits are being made lacking NPOV. In short I made identical edit to 1st amendment and to this day it remains. So why is the text here getting so much attention, and what appears to be a de-emphasis on the main body short text. My concerns are stated. 0pen$0urce (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the insertion of the cquote template in the first amendment article was made by another user here. You added a parameter to the template, which was reverted. As to why the template remains in that article, I can only answer for myself - I don't watch the article. However, the editor's justification (consistency) is insufficient, in my view. See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. At the risk of a possible war, I mean disagreement, I will change it back to the quote template.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Nordyke citation

The citation provided in the material for Nordyke v. King is from 2009. A recent decision has been made by the Ninth Circuit in that case. So should that citation be replaced with one for the recent decision or should a new citation accompany the one from 2009? SMP0328. (talk) 00:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The 2009 citation is the opinion that was vacated. One of the key elements missing from the description of the Nordyke history is that the en banc panel remanded the case back to the panel "in light of McDonald v. City of Chicago." The decision that is important is the latest panel decision, which doesn't yet have an F.3d cite.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Should we remove the 2009 citation? SMP0328. (talk) 00:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

"Please answer the question." :-) Yes.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. SMP0328. (talk) 01:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Individual Rights

It is noteworthy, I think, that the word 'individual(s)' does not appear in the Constitution itself in reference to individual persons (it is sometimes used in reference to States). In regard to rights, the Constitution generally employs the term "the people". A careful reading, I think, makes it clear the framers intended the term "the people" in the collective sense. For example, ". . . the people's right to keep and bear arms." Wikipedia's explanations of the articles would be better served, I think, if it refrained from the use of expressions such as, "the right of individuals to bear arms." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbyall (talk • contribs) 20:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

"Individual" is THE question. Now it has been decided that it is individual, but even before that / in either case, we must accurately describe the question. North8000 (talk) 20:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk pages are not forums and this is not the place to give your "careful reading" of the constitution when it appears you're unfamiliar with it. You're right, the constitution never uses the word "individual". One possible reason for that is because the term individual is a much narrower term than "person" which the constitution uses continually. For example, when it clearly refers to individuals, such as the individual to be the president, it uses the term "person". The term "people" or "the people" is used in most of the other individual rights amendments of the Bill of Rights as well. For instance, "the people" is used in the 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendments, as well as the 9th and 10th (although their effect is much less apparent). The 17th amendment also uses "the people" although its context is contextually quite different. "Person" is used in the Bill of Rights when its clear that only a specific person is relevant, e.g. the 5th amendment.

You might find it interesting that most 2nd amendment jurisprudence has had little to do with these issues, however. "Person" and "individual" are words that have specific legal meanings in all contexts, specifically though in the constitution (person is broader than individual; the former including corporate entities and other bodies, whereas individuals means a single homo sapien).

In any case, this isn't the place to argue your opinion. Shadowjams (talk) 05:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Ratification debate and its purpose

The section of this article on "Ratification Debate" contains a number of unsourced assertions that may be a-historical.

For example, the article states, "Against that backdrop, the framers saw the personal right to bear arms as a potential check against tyranny." This may not quite be the case. In the Federalist #25, for example, Hamilton cautions that "feeble government" is unlikely to be respected, and cites some instances where states have raised militias to quell the spirit of rebellion among the population. He writes:

"The conduct of Massachusetts affords a lesson on the same subject, though on different ground. That State (without waiting for the sanction of Congress, as the articles of the Confederation require) was compelled to raise troops to quell a domestic insurrection, and still keeps a corps in pay to prevent a revival of the spirit of revolt. The particular constitution of Massachusetts opposed no obstacle to the measure; but the instance is still of use to instruct us that cases are likely to occur under our government, as well as under those of other nations, which will sometimes render a military force in time of peace essential to the security of the society, and that it is therefore improper in this respect to control the legislative discretion. It also teaches us, in its application to the United States, how little the rights of a feeble government are likely to be respected, even by its own constituents. And it teaches us, in addition to the rest, how unequal parchment provisions are to a struggle with public necessity."

If there is an individual right to bear arms, the origin of this right likely lies elsewhere than in enabling the citizens to fight the government. It may have been so obvious to the framers that it didn't warrant much debate, but one likely reason for the second amendment was that the revolutionaries were, in casting off monarchy, also casting off the feudal system.

Under the feudal system, most nobles were knights, sworn to protect the clergy, their liege, and the peasants who lived on their land, and who were unarmed. Arming the peasants would have been seen as an important part of preventing the resurgence of a feudal society. This interpretation would agree with the prohibition against titles of nobility found in both the Constitution and the Articles of Confederation.

Inijones (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Not that this is the place for such a discussion, but one person arguing for a non-feeble government does not even address much less refute "potential check against tyranny" being one of the reasons for the 2A. North8000 (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Alexander Hamilton is hardly "one person arguing for non-feeble government." Inijones (talk) 21:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Which part of that is an incorrect description of what you wrote? North8000 (talk) 21:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Dismissing Hamilton's writings in the Federalist as just the opinions of one person is like saying "Benjamin Franklin was just some printer" or "Constantine was just some Roman who found Jesus one day." The Federalist Papers are a record of what people thought about the Constitution at the time it was ratified. If you believe that the Constitution means what it says, and that "activist judges" are a problem, then you are obligated to consider the Federalist Papers as a record of what the Constitution meant to the people who ratified it. If you dismiss the Federalist papers, you're no better than "activist judges." Inijones (talk) 14:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The Federalist Papers are a record of what the people who wrote the Constitution, not those who ratified it, thought it meant. SMP0328. (talk) 15:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Hamilton played little part in the writing of the constitution, and the authors of the Federalist papers were addressing their critics as well as their supporters, and so the document is a record of what people thought about the Constitution at the time it was ratified.Inijones (talk) 16:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The whole article is OR, using primary sources rather than secondary sources. The right to bear arms was already recognized in the American states under the Bill of Rights 1689. TFD (talk) 20:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The Bill of Rights 1689 is British law and so ceased to be binding in America post-independence. Such recognition by the States was under State Constitutions. SMP0328. (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

No, all English laws remained in force except where superceded by specific declarations or laws of the states. See for example Kilty's English Statutes, 1811 which explains which English laws continued in effect in Maryland. TFD (talk) 20:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It would make sense that the colonists would follow the British tradition on this regard (the British were still "subjects" and didn't become "citizens" until 1981, and still have no single constitution), but that tradition occurred in the context of a monarchism that was as opposed to the feudal system as were the revolutionists, who forbade titles of nobility in the constitution.Inijones (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The only citations in the section in question are from the constitution and the articles of confederation, save for a quote from Patrick Henry without any context, sourced from this page: http://www.quotes-museum.com/quote/Patrick_Henry/40613 and a quote from Sam Adams that reiterates what we all know is already in the constitution, and does nothing to clarify the terms of the historical debate.Inijones (talk) 21:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

There is a clear example in the Federalist 44 of something being too obvious to warrant debate. Madison writes: "The prohibition with respect to titles of nobility is copied from the articles of Confederation and needs no comment." Constitutional constructionism requires adherents to understand the language of the constitution in terms of its meaning at the time it was written. So with historical debates like this, it is important to look at sociological evidence outside the letter of the law.Inijones (talk) 16:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

There is yet another view of this issue at: http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/lhr/22.1/forum_konig.html Konig writes: "Analysis brought to bear on the historical meaning of 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' has coalesced around two competing normative interpretations: either that the amendment guarantees a personal, individual right to bear arms, or that it applies only collectively to the effectiveness of the militia. It is a premise of this essay that both these models are historically unsatisfactory, the products of present-day normative agendas that have polarized the debate into two competing and largely ahistorical models—a type of historians' fallacy that David Hackett Fischer has labeled the 'fallacy of false dichotomous questions.' Fischer's description aptly describes the current controversy over the historical meaning of the Second Amendment: in addition to being 'grossly anachronistic,' its two opposing positions 'are mutually exclusive, and collectively exhaustive, so that the there is no overlap, no opening in the middle, and nothing is omitted at either end.' It is not without challenge on just these grounds, however, as a recent call for a 'new more sophisticated paradigm' attests. This essay seeks to provide that new model and to do so by grounding the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms' in eighteenth-century concepts of rights, not those of the twenty-first century, and to contextualize the right to bear arms in an eighteenth-century political struggle now largely ignored but well known to constitutional polemicists framing the Constitution and the Bill of Rights: Parliament's rebuilding of an English militia while denying the Scots the right to do so, despite Scotland's history and its claimed constitutional rights according to its coequal status in Great Britain." Some of the evidence brought to bear by Konig would be worth including in the section of the Wikipedia article that I've raised issue with.Inijones (talk) 16:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

In terms of Konig's argument noted above, the "right to bear arms" may have been meant to be construed in terms of a well regulated militia, specifically as an alternative to a standing army, the purpose of which was to repel foreign invasion, quell insurrection, in addition to serving as a check against tyranny (compare to Article I Section 8 of the Constitution, giving Congress the power to "raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years"). To Konig, the historical understanding involved an individual right as a function of a collective duty; this was notably in the absence of a feudal system of patronage and protection.Inijones (talk) 21:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The importance of historical context in a constructionist (originalist) milieu is discussed in a secondary source here http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/interp.html "There are five sources that have guided interpretation of the Constitution: (1) the text and structure of the Constitution, (2) intentions of those who drafted, voted to propose, or voted to ratify the provision in question, (3) prior precedents (usually judicial), (4) the social, political, and economic consequences of alternative interpretations, and (5) natural law. There is general agreement that the first three of these sources are appropriate guides to interpretation, but considerable disagreement as to the relative weight that should be given to the three sources when they point in different directions. Many interpreters of the Constitution have suggested that the consequences of alternative interpretations are never relevant, even when all other considerations are evenly balanced. Natural law (higher law, God's law) is now only infrequently suggested as an interpretive guide, even though many of the framers of the Constitution recognized its appropriateness. Persons who favor heavy reliance on originalist sources (text and intentions) are commonly called 'originalists.'"Inijones (talk) 15:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

First Paragraph

The first paragraph of the section in question reads: "There was substantial opposition to the new Constitution, because it moved the power to arm the state militias from the states to the federal government. This created a fear that the federal government, by neglecting the upkeep of the militia, could have overwhelming military force at its disposal through its power to maintain a standing army and navy, leading to a confrontation with the states, encroaching on the states' reserved powers and even engaging in a military takeover"

None of these statements are sourced. The fears of neglecting the militia are discussed in context in the article by Konig I mentioned above, but the assertion about the federal government's ability to maintain a standing army needs clarification in light of Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution which I have cited above, giving Congress the power to "raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years." Which is to say, that the framers seemed wary of standing armies, and took steps to safeguard against their establishment. At the time monarchs were disarming peasants to centralize power in armies and dismantle the feudal system. Also, standing armies were expensive and tended to bankrupt nations. For example: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Military_history_of_France "Under Louis XIV France achieved military supremacy over its rivals, but escalating conflicts against increasingly powerful enemy coalitions checked French ambitions and left the kingdom bankrupt at the opening of the 18th century." The origin of Swiss political neutrality had to do with the fact that their national industry was a mercenary army for hire, as if to make it known that their involvement in military affairs was a strictly commercial proposition: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Swiss_mercenaries "Until roughly 1490, the Swiss had a virtual monopoly on pike-armed mercenary service. However, after that date, the Swiss mercenaries were increasingly supplemented by imitators, chiefly the Landsknechts. Landsknechts were Germans (at first largely from Swabia) and became proficient at Swiss tactics to produce a force that filled the ranks of European armies with mercenary regiments for decades. Although the Landsknechts were never quite as redoubtable as the Swiss, they were much more readily available for hire, as after 1515 the Swiss pledged themselves to neutrality, other than regarding Swiss soldiers serving in the ranks of the Royal French army"

The Constitutional provision to maintain a Navy was primarily about commerce and piracy, as the US was largely pre-industrial. According to http://www.history.navy.mil/history/history2.htm "The Continental Congress had a very limited role in mind for the navy. It was not expected to contest British control of the seas, but rather to wage a traditional guerre de course against British trade, in conjunction with the scores of privateers outfitting in American ports. The Continental navy's ships were to raid commerce and attack the transports that supplied British forces in North America. To carry out this mission, the Continental Congress began to build up, through purchase, conversion, and new construction, a cruiser navy of small ships--frigates, brigs, sloops, and schooners. For the most part, Continental navy ships cruised independently or in pairs in search of their prey, avoiding whenever possible fights with Royal Navy men-of-war."Inijones (talk) 15:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Also from http://www.history.navy.mil/history/history2.htm "In Philadelphia in 1787, delegates drew up a constitution, which was adopted in 1789. As part of that debate, the Federalists, the nationalists who supported the new scheme of government, envisioned a state powerful enough to maintain a navy capable of protecting U.S. commerce. Some Federalists went even further. Alexander Hamilton argued that while the United States could not challenge Europe's principal maritime powers on the seas, in the event of a European war pitting France against Great Britain, a small fleet of American battleships would allow the United States to play the makeweight in the balance of power in the Western Hemisphere. For Hamilton and his supporters, a navy could play a broad national role in pursuit of the interests of the United States, and not just a limited role protecting the ships and cargoes of U.S. merchants." Inijones (talk) 15:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

New First Paragraph

I propose amending the section on "Ratification Debate" to include a new first paragraph to ground the relevance of the section.

I propose this text:

When seeking to understand or interpret provisions in the US Constitution, it is important to take historical context into consideration. In the context of originalism in particular, it is important to understand the language of the Constitution in terms of what that language meant to the people who wrote and ratified the text. Accordingly, the historical terms of debate continue to have relevance today.

Not done: {{edit semi-protected}} is not required for edits to semi-protected, unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages.--Hazel77 ^talk 18:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Couple quick thoughts. Sounds like giving the reader instructions rather than information. Also might be giving too much emphasis to that angle, one of many. North8000 (talk) 18:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with the ratification debate. TFD (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok. How about this:

Beyond historical curiosity, the Second Amendment ratification debate is of practical import, particularly to adherents of originalist and strict constructionist legal theories. In the context of such legal theories and elsewhere, it is important to understand the language of the Constitution in terms of what that language meant to the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution.

If North8000 doesn't like that, then I propose the whole section be removed (unless (s)he has a better reason to preserve it than what I have just identified).

As TFD noted in the discussion above, the section in question is substantially original research, does not meet Wikipedia standards, and contains other problems which I have outlined (with citations) in two discussion sections above.

I really don't see much that should be controversial about my proposed amendment to the article. Inijones (talk) 16:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Only Amendment to not have main text c quote format?? Why?

I went over this in the past and I an not getting it. Either all the amendment main text should be about the same format. See list of amendments here List of ratified amendments It is understood that gun laws and rights are very controversial, I have concerns this may be a very subtle NPOV issue. I came here just to simply find the actual text and had a hard time finding it and I don't quite get the necessity that slight punctuation variances need to take top billing. Again either all should have cquote or none. Lets discuss. --0pen$0urce (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

This has come up several times. I really don't have an opinion (so, either way is fine with me) except to say that it should be whatever works best for this article, not be driven by what is happening in any other articles in any of the various "groups" of articles that folks may envision it being in. Also that a change should not be put in by edit warring. North8000 (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid reason for changing an article against guidelines. See WP:MOSQUOTE ("especially avoid decorative quotation marks in normal use, such as those provided by the cquote template, which are reserved for pull quotes"). If you want to override the guidelines, then you need to obtain a consensus for it here first, not implement your view of how it should be. Leave it alone until and if you've obtained that consensus.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Disagree this is overriding guidelines. See "A pull quote (also known as a lift-out quote) is a quotation or excerpt from an article that is typically placed in a larger or distinctive typeface on the same page, serving to entice readers into an article or to highlight a key topic. I disagree that this is improper use of Cquote or again why aren't the other amendment which are very relevant allotted Cquote. Again why such aggressive policing of this amendment and not the same treatment afforded to the first and the third, fourth, fifth, sixth,...??? This isn't being decorative this is enticing the reader and drawing them to the main text as in the other amendment of the US constitution. I disagree this is for decorative reasons, it is for distinct text at the beginning of a section. So Bbb23 has one opinion my is opposing. Lets discuss with the community.--0pen$0urce (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I lean slightly towards preferring the pull quotes, but lean strongly against you edit warring in a change. Let's discuss this more thoroughly in order to thoroughly settle once and for all this matter which keeps coming up again and again. North8000 (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm through edit-warring and also through responding to Open. I've spent time on this before and it's a waste.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I reverted Open on the change and felt that they were the one edit warring, not you. But I think that it would be good to, in some manner, place extra emphasis on the amendment itself. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

As usual, your conduct is honest and professional. I'll let other editors weigh in on this issue if they wish, but it doesn't usually generate a lot of interest.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

@0pen$0urce: "Enticing the reader and drawing them in" by highly selective quotation is a massive WP:NPOV problem, and one of the main reasons MOS eschews the style (I think MOS should outright ban it citing NPOV policy, but we'll see). Wikipedia is not journalism, and manipulative journo tricks like that are not appropriate in an encyclopedia, just like we do not use tantalizingly incomplete, "cliff-hanger" information in lead sections to hook readers, the way a journalistic lede does. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 09:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Should the Second Amendment main text use Cquote?

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

---

Closure: There is consensus against the use of Cquote template on this article. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 08:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

A minor disagreement has arisen regarding the use of Cquote formatting for the main text of the second amendment. A discussion is underway about if this is against guidelines.--0pen$0urce (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• I think that there are two questions:
  1. Is it against guidelines?
  2. What shall we do here?

North8000 (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• Well stated, in this time I have read the guidelines a couple times, my humble interpretation is no, it does not go against guidelines. Or I wouldn't be pushing RFC to begin with.--0pen$0urce (talk) 18:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• My opinion on #1 is that the MOS does not clearly "rule" either way on this but does seem to discourage it. It discourages it for blockquotes, and says that its main use is for pull quotes. So the question is, which situaiotn do we have here? I think it more likely to call this a block quote than a pull quote. My opinion on #2 is that I would like to find a way to further highlight what is considered to be THE the text of the amendment. We never really say that much less highlight it. The place with the text just gives two conflicting texts. But to me the cquotes are a large and outlandish-looking way of doing that. On way would be to simply put it in the lead. North8000 (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• No {{cquote}}. North8000, it doesn't say its "main" use is for pull quotes, it says its use is for pull quotes. If anywhere says otherwise right this moment, it's because someone with an agenda has been altering template documentation, etc., again to favor decorative block quotes against long-standing consensus. The cquote template should not be used in articles for anything but pull quotes per MOS:QUOTE and the template's own documentation. Really, per MOS:ICONS (an applicable Manual of Style section) it probably should never be used in articles at all, because its cutesy, giant “ ” glyphs are a form of pure decoration. I've yet to ever see a legitimate, non-distracting, genuinely encyclopedic use of cquote in any Wikipedia article. Even without that template, pull quotes should virtually never be used in articles per WP:NOT#NEWSPAPER – pull quotes are a journalistic, not encyclopedic style – and most importantly because they almost always violate WP:NPOV, especially WP:UNDUE. The purpose desired here, of giving the actual text of the Second Amendment, is served with a block quotation or even a regular one (the 2A isn't long). If it's not already given in full in the article prose anyway, then it is not a pull quote, by definition (a quote pulled from the prose for special emphasis). Giving it in full in the prose serves the identified purpose, obviating any need for a pull quote, a reporter/columnist style that doesn't belong here. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 01:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• NO IMHO, cquotes have been misused in the Text section in many of the Articles and Amendments to the US Constitution. In many incidences an editor sees it used in one Article or Amendment and assumes it should be used in all others for consistency. While some articles do not have cquotes presently, they have in the past. According to WP:MOSQUOTE “Do not enclose block quotations in quotation marks (and especially avoid decorative quotation marks in normal use, such as those provided by the cquote template, which are reserved for pull quotes)”. Some editors have claimed that the text was “pulled” from the Constitution, but, in fact, the text is the Article or Amendment not a quote from it. A pull quote (also known as a lift-out quote) "is a quotation or excerpt from an article that is typically placed in a larger or distinctive typeface on the same page, serving to entice readers into an article or to highlight a key topic. The term is principally used in journalism and publishing" i.e. magazines, newspapers, and advertising. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and does not need “clowny” quotation marks to entice readers.Grahamboat (talk) 04:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• No - I agree with everything said above, but the bigger issue is whether cquote is ever proper in Wikipedia. SMP0328. (talk) 04:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

There have been many discussions about cquote vs. quote and why we even have a cquote template when we're not supposed to use it. There's one discussion in particular that I participated in some time ago, but I'm having trouble finding it at the moment, and it's getting late, so I have to get off. My vague recollection is there was no consensus on what should be done (big surprise).--Bbb23 (talk) 05:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, we've been running this for 3 1/2 weeks and it appears there is a strong consensus on question #1, that being to not use cquotes in this article. This has been a recurring question; I consider that this finally settles it unless overturned by another review of this extent. With that decided, I think there is no real remaining dispute on question #2 ("What shall we do here?")....it is just an open question, and I'd recommend the normal talk process to work on that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, North8000, for taking the laboring oar and administrating this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure. North8000 (talk) 03:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

NPOV in the Introduction

The article as presented takes a particular side in the gun debate, and in fact glosses over the gun debate entirely:

"The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights."

The article introduction thus must be said to be written from a POV rather than NPOV. There are two main interpretations of the Second Amendment, and the gun debate largely stems from these interpretations. The ratified text of the Second Amendment reads:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Hence the two main interpretations are:

1. There is a stated "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" that exists independently of all other principles and concepts.
2. The stated "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" falls entirely within the concept of keeping "a well regulated Militia," a Militia that is "necessary" for keeping "the security of a free state."

I propose a rewrite of the article lead in keeping with NPOV, a rewrite which lays out these two general interpretations of the Second Amendment. While the information about recent court cases is interesting, I do not support bolstering the pro-gun side in this article, by referencing only recent court cases, and failing to reference the debate, its long history, and that debates' continued relevance. Instead of promoting one interpretation up front, we must first present the text of the Second Amendment, and afterwards we may then break down the two basic interpretations. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 18:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Read District of Columbia v. Heller, McDonald v. Chicago and this talk page's archives. This article reflects the current Supreme Court interpretation of the Second Amendment, just like other Constitutional amendment articles reflect current Supreme Court interpretations of those amendments. SMP0328. (talk) 19:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a gun debate in the United States is there not? Why then present the issue as one-sided, according to only the whims of SCOTUS interpretation? -Stevertigo (t | c) 19:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Because the Supreme Court's opinion is the only one that has the force of law. This article reflects the officially recognized meaning of the Second Amendment, not what others want the amendment to mean. SMP0328. (talk) 19:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I might add that there are articles that address the "gun debate" in the U.S. See, for example, Gun politics in the United States. And although you (Steve) may not approve of the recent Supreme Court decisions on the second amendment, I wouldn't refer to them as "whims" but as the current definitive interpretation of the amendment.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

This has been extensively discussed. This is a legal instrument, and what the Supreme court says is by definition the legal answer to that question. The other opinions are also covered (particularly in the historical sense before it was decided). North8000 (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the idea that we here at Wikipedia respect the "force of law," and we keep articles up to date with the latest in legal opinion. But legal opinions and interpretations can and do change - what matters for us is that we write articles with a wider scope of field. Our highest principle here is NPOV, not SCOTUSPOV. Hence, the proper way to deal with SCOTUSPOV is to give it only due weight, and to put its assertions in context as: "recent Supreme Court opinions state support for the concept of a right to bear arms" etc. Even though recent SCOTUS opinion states such, in a free society we are free to look at the Constitution itself, and read for ourselves whether the Constitution actually supports such a right: According to an honest reading it may not, and according to NPOV we are obliged to represent such views in balance. Again, NPOV is our prime directive, not SCOTUSPOV. -Stevertigo (t | c) 19:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

PS: North8000 wrote: "This is a legal instrument..." - Actually this is an encyclopedic instrument, not a legal one. -Stevertigo (t | c) 19:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

By "legal instrument" I meant the second amendment. And on a matter of law, (which this is) SCOTUS does not opine on the legal meaning, it defines it; i.e. what it says is by definition the legal meaning. North8000 (talk) 19:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Right. But I'm not talking about the Second Amendment, I'm talking about how we present it and its varied interpretations in this article. Clearly SCOTUSPOV factors in prominently. But NPOV demands we be fair to other interpretations. Same with for example, abortion - we don't write an article about abortion in the US solely deferring to Roe v. Wade: We also have to note that there are good honest people who disagree entirely with Roe v. Wade and actively seek to overturn it. -Stevertigo (t | c) 20:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

But Roe V Wade did not define the meaning of an amendment. North8000 (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The Second Amendment had a "meaning" when it was written did it not? And it had a "meaning" ten minutes before McDonald v Chicago, did it not? If we are to talk at all about "meaning" we must address the Second Amendment's "meaning" over its life of 200+years, not just the last three. -Stevertigo (t | c) 20:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Prior to Heller the legal meaning with respect to the question in your original post was an unresolved question, now it no longer is. North8000 (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The law is always in a state of construction and refinement. Its meaning is not as clear cut as the pro-gun lobby would like us to think. Do you no longer wish to discuss improving this article? -Stevertigo (t | c) 20:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

You brought up something you felt would improve the article. Several of us have rejected your proposal and your reasoning. As an aside, there is already in the article a fair amount of history on the second amendment and its meaning by different scholars, different justices, and different cases. I see no encyclopedic basis for expanding the article (already too bloated in my view) in the way you've suggested.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It was my intent here to raise an issue of improving the article in accord with NPOV. Do you disagree with NPOV and what it means? -Stevertigo (t | c) 20:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree with your claim that wp:nopv supports the changes that you prefer. North8000 (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Not so respectfully, you (Steve) need to learn how to discuss issues without resorting to loaded, baseless, cross-examination-like questions.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Respectfully, at the very least, the article needs to frame the recent court opinions as 'recent court opinions.' I understand that recent decisions frame the current law of the land. Still its wrong to approach a topic open to interpretation with only one interpretation. Stevertigo (t | c) 21:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed that the statement that you are taking issue with is directly quoted from the amendment itself! So you are saying the exact wording of the amendment is a POV statement about what the amendment means?!?! Or, to put it another way, you are saying that the amendment directly states and supports what you are calling the position of the "gun lobby". :-) North8000 (talk) 21:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. Both interpretations 1 and 2 directly quote the amendment. One does so in limited context: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," the other does so in full context: "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State." -Stevertigo (t | c) 22:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

PS: I just read your questions again. I am only taking issue with one thing - the default usage of recent Supreme Court cases to trump any issue of debate regarding the interpretation of the Second Amendment. We owe it to our readers to present a more balanced view, one which gives some regard to its long and debated history, and the two basic ways one can interpret the original text. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 22:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious, what would you change in the edit, keeping in mind that you need to avoid giving WP:UNDUE weight to a minority view which also breaches NPOV? This isn't the gun control debate article, this is the 2nd Amendment article, so it focuses on what that means which is determined by court rulings. Ravensfire (talk) 22:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit conflict, responding only to previous post. So to briefly sum up, what I'm saying is that it's a legal instrument, and the legal meaning of that legal instrument (with respect to the debate that you are discussing) has been settled by the body with ultimate authority for determining it. Controversies should be noted, particularly in the historical sense. Take for example the nineteenth amendment giving women the right to vote. The amendment was/is claimed by some to be invalid. The article covers that claim, and how the court ruled on it. This article does the same, and gives much more space to the claims that it doesn't grant an individual right. Despite this, it's not considered to be POV to say that the 19th amendment gave women the right to vote in the lead. North8000 (talk) 22:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate both of your comments and questions (Ravensfire and North8000). In short I think the best way to answer your requests is to edit the article itself to show what I think the article intro should read. In short, the article should show the actual amendment text prominently - something we can do in cases like this where the actual text (the text which is the subject of the article) is quite short and to the point.

We then move on to issues of interpretation - it is of course valid to do as in the current version to feature recent SCOTUS opinion prominently, but I think its important to put these opinions in context as "recent court opinions". The issue with featuring SCOTUS opinion upfront is that it not only trumps the issue of the gun debates, but fails to explain the context of those debates - that part of the debate flows directly from differences in the interpretation of the amendment itself. Im not clear about how to introduce the gun debate here in a way which would not solicit the ire of good folks here, particularly if those good folks for some reason think the debates are over or are else settled somehow. But what I can do is implement the first two changes noted above, leaving the interpretation context for later, and those would go a long way toward answering the needs of this article. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 20:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the better course of action for you to place your proposed material in Gun politics in the United States. This article meant to show the amendment's official meaning. The official meaning of any Constitutional provision is determined by SCOTUS, even though SCOTUS may change that meaning occasionally. SMP0328. (talk) 21:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I also think that if Steve wants to make any changes along the lines he's suggesting to this article, he should put them on the Talk page first because it's highly likely they will be reverted if put in the article itself.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I have edited the article in accord with the plan I have laid out above, and the edited version can be seen here. PS: Here is the diff. Note that per the BRD concept, I understood that I would probably be reverted and that we would naturally discuss my edits here.

As an aside, when I first came here to this article, I realized that it would naturally attract a strong following from editors with pro-gun and gun rights views, and that it may be difficult to separate them from an indeliberate agenda to render the article in accord with pro-gun concepts. However I am also been editing here for about a decade, and I know that even the most entrenched POV editors can come around, given a good faith approach that respects the intelligence of all involved. In the case that I am in fact dealing with pro-gun editors here, I would encourage these editors to separate their activism from their editing. NPOV is our highest principle - not a particular political agenda. -Stevertigo (t | c) 22:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand that you want to drastically reduce the article, but you pulled out a dull machete, not a sharp knife. Your edit, frankly, left the page in an awful state that looks terrible. References. Categories. Inter-wiki links. See also. Chopped. For that reason alone I reverted your edits. You might consider working in a user sandbox rather than here, especially given you know what the reaction would be. Ravensfire (talk) 22:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm assuming he's screwing up the article inadvertently, but doesn't he even look at the article after his edit? He keeps doing it, too. Now, I'm just using rollback rather than undoing with an explanation.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

{{WP:NPOV|neutrality]] does not require us to reflect to accept the majority decision of the SCOTUS as definitive. Why not just state what the amendment says? TFD (talk) 22:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I don't understand what you're saying.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

He's agreeing with me in principle that we give due weight, not undue weight to current SCOTUS opinion. -Stevertigo (t | c) 22:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Note I apologise for the errors visible in this edit, I did not intend to cut large sections from the article. Either this happened as a result of an error in the cut and paste function, or as a problem with my wifi. Regards - Stevertigo (t | c) 22:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Stevertigo, please refrain from making personal attacks. The articles related to gun poliitics have many interested editors, some of whom may hold strong personal opinions on either extreme, but all of whom are assumed to be able to set their views aside for the purpose of improving the article.

As far as I can see, no one has disagreed with you based on POV; they have tried to explain that, in the United States, the Supreme Court is the body which interprets the constitution. The Supreme Court has interpreted the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right to keep and bear arms. I think it is important to capture the different viewpoints which existed before and even after that decision, but those viewpoints should have very little weight compared to the Supreme Court decision. At most, we should add a mention of the earlier debate to the end of the lede. Celestra (talk) 23:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

1) In no way can my comments be interpreted or characterized as a "personal attack." 2) How little weight is very little? 3) It seems at least you agree that some mention of the gun debate belongs in the lede. -Stevertigo (t | c) 07:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

It is difficult to see how they might be interpreted otherwise; you accused your fellow editors, en masse, of being "POV editors" and having agendas. Please assume that all of the editors are interested in producing the best article possible and merely disagree with you on how to accomplish that. Celestra (talk) 16:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed changes

The link to my proposed edit is here and the diff is here, and the full text with changes underlined is below. As part of the BRD cycle my changes to the article were reverted, thus bringing us to the discussion stage. The edited version reads:

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that deals with the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. The full text of the amendment as passed by Congress reads:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

In the United States there has been an ongoing debate on the issue of firearms, and there has been a historical debate over the way the Second Amendment has been interpreted —either the Second Amendment asserts an unqualified and unlimited right to bear arms, or else the above stated right to bear arms exists only in the context of a regulated militia that serves to ensure national security. Gun rights advocates have naturally promoted the first view, while gun control advocates have promoted the second.

Explanation of the above edits

1. To say that the provision protects the right to bear arms is presumptuous, given that support for this view cites Supreme Court opinions only 4 and 2 years old, almost 250 years after the Second Amendment was crafted. It may be fair to say that the issue is 'finally settled', but we don't write articles that ignore nearly 250 years of interpretation and legal debate. The NPOV way to deal with these kinds of introductions is simply to state that the amendment 'deals with' or 'pertains to' the issue of gun rights, etc.
2. Including the full text of the Second Amendment in the lede only makes sense. Why keep the current version, which jumps over even the actual amendment text, to mention tediously recent court opinion?
3. Including a short treatment of the role of the Second Amendment in the overall gun debate only makes sense. It may be that the version we agree on will put this treatment after the part dealing with recent court opinion, but it is clear I think that some treatment of the gun debate is necessary.

Regards to all, -Stevertigo (t | c) 07:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

1. Several different people have tried to explain the role of the Supreme Court. The fact that the Supreme Court made those interpretations recently does not remove the history, but it does determine the actual meaning today. I feel the article's lede is better, and more neutral, if we state that up front rather than using weasel words to obscure the fact. Examine the ledes of the other articles in the Bil of Rights, you will find assertions of "protect" and "prohibit" in most.
2. While you are examining those ledes, you will find no cases where the text is included. The lede is the place to tell the reader what the article is about, not to present raw data.
3. I think it inappropriate to drag the larger debate into the lede. The Second Amendment had been a factor in those ongoing debates, not the other way around. Mentioning the fact that people disagreed about the meaning prior to the decisions is different than rehashing the larger debate here, especially in the lede.

Regards, Celestra (talk) 16:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Celestra, I'm fine with stating the recent SCOTUS interpretation upfront, but does it really have to be first thing one sees after the introductory sentence? And on the matter of putting things upfront, why not put the actual amendment text upfront, where the reader can quickly see for themselves what the subject is about? The amendment is rather nice and short, and given its longevity, we might even regard it as well-written! I'm a firm believer in putting our best upfront and forward. Just because other amendment articles do not do this (this amendment is rather nice and short) there is no rule saying that we shouldn't put the actual text upfront. What's more is this article has had some notably long history of differing interpretation, I think pro-gun editors here tend toward wanting to make an end-run around these prominent differences and debates. Its not an NPOV way of approaching a subject of controversy.

In your previous comment you supported the idea of including some kind of treatment of the gun debate, at least toward the end of the lede. This is something we appeared to agree on. Are you reconsidering this view? You say now: "I think it inappropriate to drag the larger debate into the lede. The Second Amendment had been a factor in those ongoing debates, not the other way around." This actually doesn't appear to make sense: Just because the debates came second doesnt mean that we don't state here how seminal and fundamental the amendment text has been to the resulting long-standing debates. Its like pro-gun editors here want us to believe these debates are now long-resolved, just months after the recent published opinions. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 21:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

@Stevertigo, I make a distinction between remarking on the disagreement about the meaning of this amendment and discussing the broader gun rights/gun control debate. We have sections devoted to the disagreement, so it is not unreasonable to mention in the lede. We do not have sections devoted to "role of the Second Amendment in the overall gun debate." I do not feel that would be appropriate.

You continue to present the problem as one of a NPOV editor trying to correct for the undue bias pro-gun editors have injected, but I think that is not a fair assessment of the current lede. It would be distorting the facts to the benefit of the gun control POV to obscure the basic fact that the amendment means what the branch of the government enpowered to interpret it says it means. We should not include assertions that try to extend that interpretation, nor should we try to make it seem less. In my opinion, the lede begins with the correct generalization and includes text that some log-standing restrictions were not unconstitutional. That seems neutral to me.

The "let's just put the raw data out there and let the reader decide for themselves" approach is not an NPOV approach. It is weighted against the conventional interpretation by elevating the reader's interpretation above that of the mainstream. We should not do that. If you'd like to propose some text to add to the end of the lede, we can discuss that, but I think there is a total lack of consensus for either softening reality in the first sentence or inserting the text into the lede. Celestra (talk) 01:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The actual amendment text is not "raw data" - it is clearly and eloquently written language, which according to one view states explicitly that there is a right to bear arms. It is the actual text, roughly 250 years old, which millions of people down the generations have read since our country was founded. Its also blessedly short, and supposedly speaks for itself. So its rather unlikely that people should find it unpalatable to feature it prominently here. (We can talk about the other issues after we deal with this one). It is an NPOV approach, and your comment that the straight shooter approach..

"is weighted against the conventional interpretation by elevating the reader's interpretation above that of the mainstream"

..can only be called "silly" - your view seeks to promote a particular interpretation which you fear the reader might not get from the actual Constitutional amendment text. -Stevertigo (t | c) 04:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Half right; I am afraid that we would mislead the reader if we were to do as you suggest. Celestra (talk) 05:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

For several reasons, I don't think the full text belongs in the lead. First is sheer consistency - all of the other Bill of Rights articles have the text as the first section after the lead. Second is the purpose of the lead. It should provide an introduction to the topic. That doesn't need nor is improved by the full text. Put a basic, straight-forward language description of the amendment then explain the major supreme court decisions interpreting the amendment. It's consistent with the other BoR amendment articles and very straight forward. Ravensfire (talk) 04:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

How then to deal with the fact that this amendment's meaning, according to editors above, has been in a state of flux until only a couple years ago? Its also not unlikely that if the 5-4 balance in the Supreme Court is overturned, the recent SCOTUS opinions might be overturned as well, hence would we write the article in accord with the gun control perspective, ignoring the long history of gun rights support? -Stevertigo (t | c) 04:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

If the SC decision is overturned, the article gets edited, just like every other article. The history goes in the body. We write the article, like every other article, in accord with the current view. Here, that means the current prevailing SC decision(s). We don't pull out the WP:CRYSTALBALL and guess the future. Say here's what it is and where it came from. Ravensfire (talk) 05:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The Amendment that gave women the right to vote was challenged as being invalid, and SCOTUS ruled that it was valid. By the reasoning of the proposal, we should note the alternate view (that it is invalid and women don't have the right to vote) in the lead of the article on that amendment! North8000 (talk) 18:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The lead is NPOV as is. Adding “Gun rights advocates promote unqualified and unlimited right to bear arms” is POV. In light of Heller, the “ongoing debate” issue has been relegated to inconsequential status, since SCOTUS interpreted the meaning of the second amendment, and therefore does not belong in the lead. Grahamboat (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Along with North8000's excellent example, there's the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Tax protester Sixteenth Amendment arguments. There are editors who would add claims to the former article that the amendment's ratification was invalid, but, since those claims have been resolved by the federal courts (including SCOTUS) as being invalid, the latter article was created so those claims could be expressed in the proper context. In this case, Gun politics in the United States in the proper article for Stevertigo. SMP0328. (talk) 19:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Recent addition & deletion regarding dicta

This involves the following statement; the part before the comma as in the article, the part after the comma was added and reverted:

"Additionally, the Court enumerated several longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession that it found were consistent with the Second Amendment, however these were in the form of non binding dicta."

I believe that I wrote the part before the comma. It is possible that my "found" is an overreach, and that the reverted addition merely took the edge off of my overreach. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Many lower federal courts treat that part of Heller as binding. It's reasonable to consider it dicta, but it's OR to have an editor declare it to be dicta. SMP0328. (talk) 00:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

For reference, SMP0328. wrote most of that, although Bbb23 changed SMP's "felt" to a more judicial sounding, if less accurate, "found". Celestra (talk) 01:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we should switch back to "felt" or "noted"? North8000 (talk) 01:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

How about just saying "Additionally, the Court enumerated several longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession which are consistent with the Second Amendment." Celestra (talk) 03:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that what actually happened was them signalling or indicating that the Heller decision should not be construed as categorically invalidating all restrictions, and particularly so for the enumerated examples. North8000 (talk) 10:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

If it's truly dicta, certainly some citable source, such as a law review article, has made the point. If not, we have no business characterizing it as dicta. Don't we have any law student editors with free access to Lexis or Westlaw who can check it out? TJRC (talk) 16:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The cited source says it's dicta. Isn't that good enough? Also, the source says "stated" rather than "found" ("felt" is not something we should use). But I'd avoid that and just say: "Additionally, the Court enumerated several longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession that were consistent with the Second Amendment, although in dicta." "Non-binding" is redundant. "In the form of" is unnecessarily wordy.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out a source for "dicta". As for what to put in the Introduction, here's my proposal: In dicta, the Court listed many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the Second Amendment. SMP0328. (talk) 01:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Fine with me.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. SMP0328. (talk) 04:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I hate to quibble, but they didn't say that. They said that this decision should not be construed as being against such provisions, I don't think that they made a statement about their overall compliance with 2A. North8000 (talk) 10:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

What would Wikipedia be without quibbling? :-) Who's "they"? Are you talking about the cited source for the material, or are you talking about the court opinion?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I wrote the above before I looked at the recent changes to the article. I don't agree with the language now in the article. The "unaffected by the Court's decision" is truly odd, but more important, it is not source-compliant. The source says "However, the Court specifically stated (albeit in dicta) that the Second Amendment did not limit prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, penalties for carrying firearms in schools and government buildings, or laws regulating the sales of guns." That's the source's interpretation of a finding by the court, even if it was an unnecessary finding (dicta). If we're going to argue the cited source is incorrect based on the decision itself (which I haven't revisited), then we have to do this in a different way, but we can't make an assertion, cite a source, and then distort what the source says based on our interpretation of the decision itself. That's clearly OR and also a misuse of primary sources.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I clarified that sentence so now it expressly states that Heller did not affect the "constitutionality" of those restrictions and prohibitions. SMP0328. (talk) 00:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I thought your original wording was better, but your latest change is at least more acceptable than the version before it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Y'all have a wikipoint. We have a source which is a primary source, but actually is more than that because it is definitive and creates the reality which the others are talking about. And regarding that, it says (only) that nothing in this ruling affects those enumerated prohibitions. And we have a high quality secondary source which says that their dicta was that those enumerated provision are consistent with the 2A. I think that by wiki-rules the secondary source should prevail, even though it makes a statement that IMHO is in error. So I will revert myself in that area unless / until we find more sourcing to clear it up. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Yet one more example of North8000's graciousness. Much appreciated.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks North8000. Hopefully, this issue is now resolved. SMP0328. (talk) 01:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I think we're settled. Long term I plan to keep my eyes open for more material regarding this. North8000 (talk) 11:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

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