Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 30

Note on Precedent

Because the article leads with recent rulings, I would like to provide some additional context. I propose the following text:

These 21st Century decisions represent a departure from established precedent, and were the first major rulings on the 2nd Amendment since the Supreme Court held that a sawed-off shotgun did not qualify as a militia weapon.

When I added this text, North8000 reverted the edit, saying: "Numeorus problems. Implausible opinion stated as fact in the voice of wikipedia. Unsourced....source merely said that some had that opinion. Also, such would be undue for the lead.)" This is both incorrect and baseless opinion.

The addition is 1) not unsourced 2) not implausible opinion and 3) arguably quite relevant for the lead as it is additional detail directly relevant to material already in the lead, but not overly verbose. The addition is sourced to the dissenting opinion from the 5-4 supreme court ruling, quoted in the new york times, and to a pulitzer-prize winning historian. Inijones (talk) 14:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The citations I provided contained the following quotations:

[1] "In a dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens took vigorous issue with Justice Scalia’s assertion that it was the Second Amendment that had enshrined the individual right to own a gun. Rather, it was 'today’s law-changing decision' that bestowed the right and created 'a dramatic upheaval in the law,' Justice Stevens said in a dissent joined by Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen G. Breyer. Justice Breyer, also speaking for the others, filed a separate dissenting opinion... Justice Stevens said the majority opinion was based on 'a strained and unpersuasive reading' of the text and history of the Second Amendment..." from: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/washington/27scotuscnd.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&hp&adxnnlx=1214566644-y9NRsbBuErVCPyegbU0ryg

and

[2]

"There has been only one significant Second Amendment case decided by the Supreme Court -- United States v. Miller, in 1939, where the National Firearms Act was upheld against a man who claimed that the amendment allowed him to keep and bear a sawed-off shotgun. The Court declared that a sawed-off shotgun is not a militia weapon."Inijones (talk) 14:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

from :Garry Wills, A Necessary Evil: A History of American Distrust of Government, Simon and Schuster, 1999, page 252

Trying to put all of the issues into an edit summary can make some of them unclear. To expand and clarify a bit:

The "represent a departure from established precedent" has many significant problems. First there is no sourcing that indicates that even the minority dissenting opinion said that (that doesn't come from "law-changing" which is what the Supreme court rulings routinely do.) Second, that mis-summarization was put in as fact in the voice of Wikipedia. Even if the material were modified so as to be an accurate summarization of the minority opinion, it would need to be stated as such, not as fact. If all of the above were fixed, it would still be questionable (but debatable) whether or not including a dissenting opinion for a Supreme Court decision is undue for the lead of the top level 2A article.

Regarding sourcing, the core statement misses by the same two points plus a third which the others render temporarily moot. The summary does not match the source even on what the minority opinion was, and even if it did, the source merely says what the minority opinion was, not that such is fact. If it did attempt that, (which it didn't) such would be a very implausible assertion and certainly not sufficient sourcing for putting such an implausible assertion in as fact in the voice of Wikipedia. North8000 (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with North8000. I would also add that this looks like a backdoor attempt to criticize the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment and has no place in the lead.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:36, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The entire second paragraph is about these 21st century rulings. The dissenting opinion is part of these rulings. Perhaps the entire second paragraph should be moved somewhere else, perhaps given its own section, such that the note about the dissenting opinion can be included (though I think such a decision would be somewhat extreme, given that it is simpler to include my proposed addition). Given that the ruling was 5-4, the dissenting opinion is not a marginal view. "All published opinions except Per Curiam decisions may be used as precedent in future litigation" http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_types_of_written_opinions_may_the_US_Supreme_Court_issue

The New York Times Article I cites continues: "For decades, the overwhelming majority of courts and commentators regarded the Miller decision as having rejected the individual-right interpretation of the Second Amendment. That understanding of the 'virtually unreasoned case' was mistaken, Justice Scalia said Thursday. He said the Miller decision meant 'only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.' Justice Stevens said the majority’s understanding of the Miller decision was not only 'simply wrong,' but also reflected a lack of 'respect for the well-settled views of all of our predecessors on the court, and for the rule of law itself.' I am not mis-representing the secondary source's characterization of the dissenting opinion. Your statement that "The summary does not match the source even on what the minority opinion was" is incorrect, just as your initial characterization of my addition as "Unsourced" was incorrect.

Nelson Lund of the George Mason University School of Law says of Heller that "the Justices were confronted with only one significant Supreme Court precedent, an eight page opinion in United States v. Miller." Miller is the case I cited in my second citation. Given that the Supreme Court dissenting opinion claims the Heller decision is a "law changing" "dramatic upheaval" of the "one significant...precedent" I don't think it is a stretch to make the modest claim that this decisions represents a departure from precedent. See this link for more detail http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract-id=1235537

It doesn't matter whether you accept the secondary source I provided as factual. The statement is verifiable, is from a secondary source (not original research), and is not editorializing on my part. The statement also come from reliable sources. The statement meets Wikipedia guidelines. Inijones (talk) 19:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't care much what Wiki Answers says. A dissent is a dissent and has little if any precedential value. It can be cited and is cited, but that doesn't mean it binds anyone. If you want to add something, it would have to be added to the right section of the article, either under commentary or in a discussion of the S. Ct. cases. And, even then, it would have to be sufficiently relevant to be included. Sourcing is just the first part. It has to be appropriate for the article and for its placement in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

You haven't addressed the substance of my reply; perhaps you would be amenable to the solution I proposed in point 1 above.Inijones (talk) 22:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm short of time at the moment but to correct one point I did not say that there was no source given, I said that the given sourcing did not substantiate the statement. And the weakest point regarding this and of the statement itself was stating a minority opinion as fact, and doing so in the voice of Wikipedia. North8000 (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

It is incorrect that the given sourcing does not substantiate the claim, as the additional quotation I provided in point 2 makes more explicit. It is not my fault that you didn't read the source I provided before you rejected it. And you did say in your initial note reversing my edit that the claim was "Unsourced....source merely said that some had that opinion" Inijones (talk) 22:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

My points were consistent, even if harder to understand in the edit summary due to being so brief. The sourcing only showed that the minority opinion was such. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

As noted in point 2 above, the New York Times secondary source article I initially cited indicates that "For decades, the overwhelming majority of courts and commentators regarded the Miller decision as having rejected the individual-right interpretation of the Second Amendment." This statement is not sourced to an individual justice or a specific judicial opinion, but is stated by the New York Times, a reliable source, as fact.Inijones (talk) 03:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

That opinion does not mean that it can be stated as fact in the voice of Wikipedia, doubly so for being in the lead. Please stop trying to war it in. that way. Attributed and in the body of the article IMO would be OK. North8000 (talk) 15:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It is stated as fact in the New York Times article I cited above. Again, your characterization of my addition is incorrect. The addition is directly relevant to material already present in that paragraph; as I noted above the entire paragraph is dedicated to these 21st century rulings, and the exclusion of this one statement, which meets Wikipedia standards, is arbitrary. Perhaps you would be amenable to the solution I proposed in point 1 above, that the entire paragraph be moved elsewhere. I will be seeking outside assistance for the resolution of this dispute.Inijones (talk) 15:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Putting the newspaper's assertion into the body of the article with attribution (e.g. according to xxxx of the New York Times, xxxxxxxxxxxxx) with more specifics is about all that would be appropriate. North8000 talk) 16:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

You are trying to elevate a highly controversial opinion by a newspaper inappropriately at least two levels above what it is due:

1. First by stating it as fact in the voice of Wikipedia.
2. Second by trying to put in the lead of the top level 2nd amendment article. One newspaper's opinion about one (key) court decision regarding the amendment does not belong in the lead. Sincerely,North8000 (talk) 17:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I have corroborated the newspaper's statement with a pulitzer prize winning historian in my original edit and with a law professor from george mason university in point 3 above. The dissenting judges in the split decision also hold that view. I'm sorry you don't accept this as fact, but on Wikipedia, your personal preference isn't the criterion for including a statement.

If it is appropriate to emphasize these rulings in the lead, why should this facet of the rulings be omitted? If this facet of the ruling does not belong in the lead, it calls into question whether the entire paragraph belongs in the lead. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to move the entire paragraph elsewhere into the body, as I suggested in point 1 above, which I reiterated to user Bbb23 above, and which I again suggested to you just above at 15:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC).

My alternative suggestion has not been addressed and I have demonstrated most of your objections to be mistaken (statement was not unsourced, it was not true that the source does not substantiate the claim, and your characterization of the statement as "One newspaper's opinion about one (key) court decision regarding the amendment" is an inaccurate characterization of the position, as I have demonstrated).Inijones (talk) 18:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

There are zillions of published opinions regarding the Supreme Court ruling. It does not follow that putting the Supreme Court ruling into the lead means that one of those many published opinions about it (selected by you) should be in the lead. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with North & Bbb - the reference to the minority opinion does not belong in the lead as it is not significant enough to warrant inclusion in the lead and seems to slant towards POV.Grahamboat (talk) 21:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Outdent- I believe we need a consensus before changing the lead.Grahamboat (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The hangup with my initial edit seems to be over my characterization of "precedent."

When I posted a modified compromise addition excluding any discussion of "precedent" my addition was rejected on the grounds that discussion of the 1939 Miller case "does not make sense in the lead and does not belong in the lead" though no reason was given for why the statement didn't make sense. As I pointed out, the second paragraph of the lead is dedicated to significant Supreme Court cases, and it is consistent to bring in mention of a third, significant case.

When I moved to implement my third choice, initially mentioned in point 1 above and reiterated several times without comment or objection -- moving the text in question in an unmodified form from the lead to the relevant sections, my edit was again reverted.

Why does it make sense to mention Heller and McDonald in the lead, but not Miller? Inijones (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

It's hard to have a conversation with you because there is a consistent pattern of you keep trying to hammer problematic edits into the lead to denigrate the major "individual right" decisions. And, with all due respect, your questions / comments seem somewhat manipulative trying to work towards that end. This most recent question is an example. While the question of whether anything on Miller belongs in the lead (Miller dealing with only a much narrower issue) is certainly legitimate, you are implying that it was the main question regarding your insertion, whereas IMHO your insertion was again done in a way along the lines of what I described in the first paragraph of this post, and with similar wiki-problems as the previous insertions. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

You characterize my edits as trying to "denigrate the major 'individual rights' decisions." That's your interpretation of what I'm doing. You are right to imply that there is controversy regarding the decision, but that controversy cuts both ways.

Your characterization of my insertion at the beginning of this post made the following points:

"First there is no sourcing that indicates that even the minority dissenting opinion said that" I believe this is inaccurate as I noted in point 2 above as well as at 03:23, 30 April 2012 above.

You characterize my edit as an "implausible assertion" but that is your POV. As I noted in point 5 above, I corroborated this implication from a reliable source with similar statements from other reliable sources.

The problems you pointed out at the top of this post do not apply to my most recent edit, as I took out the offending material under the guidance of a moderator.

You accuse me of being manipulative; I am just arguing for the inclusion of a single statement that meets WikiPedia guidelines and which I have modified subsequent to receiving feedback from a moderator. If the implication is that I am not acting in good faith, I would point out that I could levy the same accusation against you and your conduct. For example, when I was trying to formulate a conservative position towards the relevance of the ratification debate back in December, and I cited Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist #25, as cautioning that "feeble government" is unlikely to be respected, you dismissed Hamilton's position as being "one person arguing for a non-feeble government." That is kind of absurd. You are hard to talk to too, but I am trying to defend my simple edit methodologically and you repeatedly mis-characterize my statements and avoid addressing the substance of my claims.

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&oldid=465658465#Ratification_debate_and_its_purpose

You acknowledge that "While the question of whether anything on Miller belongs in the lead (Miller dealing with only a much narrower issue) is certainly legitimate." Why not address the question that prompted your most recent reply:

The entire second paragraph is about Supreme Court cases. If Heller and McDonald fit into the lead, why doesn't Miller? If Miller should be removed, why not remove Heller and McDonald to the appropriate sections in the body of the article? (unsigned comment by Inijones)

I have high hopes because you exhibit much more than most of what's needed for discussion on a high plane. But you continue the same stuff. On you point #9 you completely omitted the operative part of my statement (that it does not even address much less refute "potential check against tyranny" being one of the reasons for the 2A. ) and substituted a straw man operative statement that I never made (a gemeral denigration of Hamilton's position by me)). North8000 (talk) 02:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Inijones - By moving the text in question to the District of Columbia v. Heller heading you caused McDonald v. Chicago to appear as part of the introduction. This didn’t make sense so I reverted. I think a consensus is needed before making these changes. Most of us believe Heller belongs in the lead because it defines the law – Miller does not. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 21:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Miller was ambiguous as both sides claimed victory. Neither the defendants nor their legal counsel appeared at the U.S. Supreme Court so there was no counter argument. The case revolved around the weapon itself rather than an individual or collective right.Grahamboat (talk) 21:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I did initially move the "McDonald v. Chicago" text into the wrong header, but I corrected that before you reversed my edit. If that is your reason for reversing my edit, you are mistaken. one person arguing for a non-feeble government

If "Miller was ambiguous as both sides claimed victory" that seems like grounds for everybody to agree to include it.

So I ask again: the entire second paragraph is about Supreme Court cases. If Heller and McDonald fit into the lead, why doesn't Miller? If Miller should be removed, why not remove Heller and McDonald to the appropriate sections in the body of the article? Inijones (talk) 23:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The second paragraph is not about Supreme Court cases per say - it is about the cases that count. Heller defines what the 2nd A. means. The fact that there were dissenting opinions bears no legal weight. Miller was a vague case, without counter argument, that did not resolve the central question of collective verses individual rights. In order to reach a consensus of the other editors here you have to present other (new) arguments than you already have. I suggest that you reread the “Outside opinion” you requested.Grahamboat (talk) 23:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor here (saw this at Dispute resolution noticeboard). I read all of the above arguments and checked selected citations, and I am with North8000 on this one. We cannot state a minority opinion as if it was a fact, and in particular we cannot do so in the voice of Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Guy, the note about the dissenting opinion was omitted from a more recent edit under the guidance of a moderator. http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&oldid=490126109

What I am trying to determine at this point is why two supreme court cases CAN go in the lead, but not another one. Nobody will address that clearly. The closest I've seen is that Grahamboat says Miller doesn't "count" even though it is still in effect and I have cited numerous sources indicating it was the last significant case prior to Heller and McDonald. If Grahamboat wants to exclude it on the grounds that it doesn't "count" that sounds like POV. There also seems to be an underlying assumption here that doing nothing is inherently POV neutral. Inijones (talk) 14:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

That question is on a completely different topic than what you have been trying to do in the lead, (and as such, is vague and hypothetical) yet you are implying that they are related. You have not proposed any edits that involve merely including Miller in the lead, without the other issues of your attempted insertions. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Asked and answered three times already, and not particularly relevant to the question at hand. I see no point in answering your question a fourth time when other editors have already answered it mulltiple times. The problem is that you don't accept the answers. Asking again will not change that.

So I have a question for you; after many arguments posted here and at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, have you been able to convince a single Wikipedia editor to support the changes you want to make to this article? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe you misunderstood my comment about Miller not “counting”. I was referring to its importance in the lead. The Miller challenge was about whether a particular type of weapon, restricted under NFA, violated 2A. As such it was a minor and somewhat narrow 2A ruling because it did not explore the broad meaning of the 2A as Heller and McDonald did. You keep bring back the same arguments and yet somehow you expect a different outcome.Grahamboat (talk) 04:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Court material added by Liko81 and then reverted

This was a bit hard to understand. Could someone clarify the reasons for addition or deletion? Is this good materiel for the article? Thanks. North8000 (talk) 01:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

He added two cases. As my summary stated, one had no cites in support of it, and the other was a pending appeal (and also had no cites). I reverted.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Summary of incident

INITIAL INCIDENT

I sought to contribute a statement that made two basic claims about the Supreme Court cases mentioned in the lead of the 2nd Amendment article: 1) that "These 21st Century decisions represent a departure from established precedent," and that 2) these same cases "were the first major rulings on the 2nd Amendment since the Supreme Court held that a sawed-off shotgun did not qualify as a militia weapon" [in the Miller case]. Each claim was supported by a verifiable, reliable source that substantiated the claims. The statement, however, was initially rejected as "unsourced." When I re-instated my edit, pointing out that the reason for rejecting it was incorrect, and that the statement was substantiated by the "dissenting opinion in the 5-4 ruling as quoted in the new york times, and the second cite was from a book by a pulitzer-prize winning historian," the statement was rejected again because I "didn't address the actual noted issues."

At this point, I felt my position was not adequately addressed, and would benefit from the additional perspective of a third party moderator, so, after attempting to argue my edit, I sought informal assistance.

INITIAL INTERACTIONS WITH MODERATOR

TransporterMan, the editor who first stepped in to moderate the discussion focused his assessment of the situation on my text about the dissenting opinion from Heller. I removed that under his advice. His assessment struck me as reasonable and in good faith, so I modified my edit to exclude any claim pertaining to the dissenting opinion.

I then attempted, instead, to include a factual statement indicating the year of the Miller case and the content of the finding. In his first post, TransporterMan had ALREADY said that this second half my initial edit was "relatively accurate and harmless."

I did not after that point pursue any effort to include anything about the dissenting opinion, and attempted to include only that portion of my initial edit that was assessed as "relatively accurate and harmless." My behavior was not vandalism.

ONLY OPPORTUNITY TO COMPROMISE BASED ON FEEDBACK FROM MODERATOR

Based on TransponderMan's assessment of my edit, which seemed oriented towards explaining to me the resistance I encountered with North8000, I added to the page my modified edit about the year of the Miller case and the case's finding. I made this edit as a compromise approached through informal means. The citation I provided (and, additional citations provided on the talk page) supported the claim that Miller was the most significant Supreme Court ruling on the 2nd Amendment prior to Heller and McDonald. The moderator understood this claim to be essentially "accurate." The entire second paragraph of the lead is already about Supreme court cases; there are, in fact, relatively few Second Amendment cases, and Miller is a significant one, as I have shown. I've provided several sources indicating that Miller is significant, and even the TOC of the current article seems to back up this claim. It furthermore seems that Miller is already alluded to in the existing text of the lead, where several "longstanding" restrictions on firearm ownership are mentioned.

My modified compromise edit seemed like a reasonable and uncontroversial fact to insert by way of making a more well-rounded summary of Supreme Court case law already mentioned in the lead. If this factual statement is going to be excluded, perhaps no discussion of Supreme Court law whatsoever belongs in the lead, and any indication for it should be confined to the relevant sections within the body of the article.

CIRCUMSTANCES WHEREBY COMPROMISE WAS REJECTED

When I made this "accurate" compromise edit, it was STILL rejected.

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=490128328&oldid=490126109

The reason provided for reverting this edit didn't seem to take into account the fact that this edit was a modified compromise position. Grahamboat indicated that mentioning Miller "didn't make sense in the lead" -- without providing any explanation as to why.

This compromise statement was rejected despite the moderator's initial view that my characterization of McDonald and Heller as "the first major rulings on the 2nd Amendment since the Supreme Court held that a sawed-off shotgun did not qualify as a militia weapon" was "relatively accurate and harmless."

My contention at this point was that if Miller is excluded from the lead, the same logic can be used to ALSO exclude Heller and McDonald from the lead. If McDonald and Heller belong in the lead, there is no good reason to exclude Miller.

I therefore moved the existing text on Heller and McDonald -- unmodified -- from the second paragraph of the lead and inserted the text in the proper two subsections of the article that were already dedicated to those individual Supreme Court cases. I had mentioned this possibility several times -- as the least preferable outcome -- and it was never objected to previously.

When this next edit was also rejected, the reason given for reverting the edit was demonstrably false. In the talk page Grahamboat said that I made an error while moving the text, and suggested that this was his real reason for rejecting my edit. I caught the error within minutes and corrected it well before Grahamboat reverted the edit. Grahamboat has not offered a more descriptive reason for why he reversed my edit, nor responded to my claim about his false characterization of my edit.

Nobody stepped in with a "consensus" reason for reverting the edit (other than to suggest that "consensus" was needed to make any change). After I pointed out (twice) that the editor's note describing why the edit was reversed was false, nobody attempted to improve my "relatively accurate and harmless" contribution. This all could have ended with TransporterMan's first post. I am not the one stirring up trouble, and my actions are not "vandalism."

ADDITIONAL VIEWS EXPRESSED ON THE NOTICE BOARD LACKING MERIT

The most recent editor to chime in, Guy, lent an initial opinion without making note of the fact that I had modified my edit to represent a compromise position; to get a more useful assessment from Guy I took the initiative to re-iterate that I was now trying to understand why my "relatively accurate and harmless" (harmless to who, or WHAT... ideology?) subsequent edits were also being blocked. When I pointed this out, Guy said that the question of why Miller should be excluded from the lead while Heller and McDonald belong in the lead had already been answered. Since I had asked the question repeatedly and would obviously seem to have been missing something, it would have been helpful to hear what Guy understood the reason to be. Guy, however, declined to make a contribution that would have clarified or substantively helped resolve the terms of the disagreement as it stood at that point.

OTHER REASONS OFFERED FOR BLOCKING EDITS REPRESENT POV

North8000 had said the matter of including such a reference to Miller as I proposed or, alternately, removing the text on McDonald and Heller is a "legitimate" issue, but declined to address the merits of the issue any further than that, even though I repeatedly asked for more detail on that very point. Guy didn't address this while dismissing my concerns.

Some of the reasons Grahamboat has given for blocking my edits seem to indicate that he is exploiting the consensus policy to block ANY edits that don't conform to his POV, such as when he justified blocking my "relatively accurate and harmless" edit on the grounds that "The second paragraph is not about Supreme Court cases per say - it is about the cases that count." If the consensus is, as Grahamboat has stated it, that only Heller and McDonald "count" -- especially in such an unqualified manner -- I'd say the consensus has a POV problem. Nobody has put forth any more robust reasoning. I was cooperating and willing to split the difference under the guidance of the initial moderator TransporterMan, who offered a well-reasoned position and who was not dismissive of my concerns. The latest editor, Guy, did not address ANY of this in rendering his passing opinion, even when I pointed out to him that his initial opinion was NOT exactly relevant and indicated to him WHY.

Grahamboat has also suggested that McDonald and Heller "define" the law (or, in this case, it would seem, the Amendment), though I do not see how Miller is substantially different in that respect, nor how that doesn't entail the POV of a specific legal theory. An "Originalist," for example, might have a slightly different attitude towards what "defines" an amendment or a law or the scope of a law. Nor do I understand even why the second paragraph of the lead ought not be modified to serve as a more well-rounded summary of significant Supreme Court case law, especially since my modified edit makes no mention of the Heller controversy (although the existing text does promote this controversial material to the lead; my revised edit is "Heller controversy neutral" and, furthermore, may help improve the second paragraph by providing additional context that makes the lead look less like an endorsement of a single POV in the controversy or, by extension, an endorsement of a single legal philosophy).

PROPOSED REMEDIES

The article has now been protected due to "vandalism" it would seem because of my efforts to include a statement in the 2nd Amendment article, which "a native Texan" moderator initially characterized as "relatively accurate and harmless." I have been experiencing unreasonable resistance to a reasonable edit. I don't think there are grounds to consider my actions "vandalism" and I think, at a bare minimum, the page should be restored to the "unprotected" status it had previous to this dispute, so that other editors can contribute to the page (that is, if they are allowed to do so). I've been working this issue out through talk pages, and I am not a "vandalism" threat to this page.

The vandalism tag does seem to be in use to exclude discussion, as, since getting page protection, these editors have, instead of compromise with me, strengthened the controversial content of the lead.

Ideally, my compromise statement about the 1939 Miller case should also be included in the lea, as it is "relatively accurate and harmless." But since the editors have since strengthened the controversial character of the lead, I think the lead would be more neutral if the discussion of Supreme Court cases were removed from the lead altogether and placed under the appropriate subheadings in the body of the article. Inijones (talk) 13:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

In the above rather lengthy diatribe, Inijones makes several comments about me, mostly accusations that I did not respond to his arguments about the content of this page. This lack of response was purposeful, because I have zero interest in and offer no opinion regarding the underlying content dispute. My only involvement (based on a specific request for an outside opinion Inijones himself made at the dispute resolution noticeboard) has been to read the arguments and to determine that the changes Inijones wishes to make are against Wikipedia's policies on consensus. I do not care about the actual content of the page. I am leaving that in the capable hands of the editors who are working on it. My interest is in Engineering-related articles. Asking for an outside opinion does not automatically make anyone who responds a party to the dispute. Also, asking a question repeatedly does not prove that there was something wrong with the answers or that further discussion is required. In this case, the repeated questions appear to be an example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You have presented a mischaracterization of the facts by cherry picking comments that favor your position and omitting those that don’t. You start by calling the TALK discussion an “incident”. You claim Grahamboat indicated that mentioning Miller "didn't make sense in the lead" -- "without providing any explanation as to why" but omit my reply - "The Miller challenge was about whether a particular type of weapon, restricted under NFA, violated 2A. As such it was a minor and somewhat narrow 2A ruling because it did not explore the broad meaning of the 2A as Heller and McDonald did". You state Grahamboat said that I made an error while moving the text I caught the error within minutes and corrected it well before Grahamboat reverted the edit but did not bother to notice that after your second change the District of Columbia v. Heller section incorrectly read "In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two Second Amendment decisions". Your use of the terms "Heller controversy" and "legal theory" indicate, to me, you are trying to disparage the SCOTUS ruling in Heller. Regarding Miller; being "relatively accurate and harmless" are not grounds for inclusion in the lead. I did not see where any editor accused you of vandalism: it is paranoid to believe editors are conspiring against you by placing a Page Protection (which I did not notice). You obviously do not understand what Page Protection is about.

In summary: you keep claiming that no one is addressing your issues and questions - which is not true. It is you who have not accepted their replies. You have not presented sufficient evidence to sway enough editors to a consensus on your views.Grahamboat (talk) 20:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Inijones IMHO you have repetitively ignored and/or misrepresented the answers that people have given you, then repeatedly claimed that answers weren't given. Then you throw this mountain of stuff (and put a copy of the whole thing at the notices board without saying that either was a copy) which IMHO is designed to obfuscate or misrepresent the core points of the discussion. This is really bad behavior against people who have taken a lot of time to give you those answers which you have been repeatedly ignoring, misrepresenting and claiming that you never got North8000 (talk) 02:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC).

Inijones appears to be trolling Wikipedia looking for support for his position and accusing editors on the article talk page of "tag teaming" him. I thought all discussions on this topic where to take place here or other formal dispute resolution pages.|see here Grahamboat (talk) 20:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, after doing all of that other stuff to other people here, why not add forum shopping and canvassing to the list. And what the heck , while canvassing, why not completely mis-represent what has been happening here. North8000 (talk) 21:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Does Miller belong in the lead?

This is somewhat a continuation of the discussions above without the dissenting opinion (Precedent) and the ridiculous “incident” report.

I tried to be open minded: reviewing the other side because a Miller reference was at least debatable. I thought having the second paragraph start out with “sawed-off shotgun” was out of place. I tried rewording the text and came up with adding “such as upholding the National Firearms Act in United States v Miller (1939)” after “prohibitions and restrictions” in the second sentence of paragraph two. After all Miller was about acceptable restrictions to 2A. On further thought, I realized Miller was just one of numerous restrictions. It dealt with the WHAT i.e. machine guns, rifles and shotguns under 18” etc. Other laws: the Gun Control Act (1968) dealt with the WHO i.e. convicted felons, under aged etc: and still other laws dealt with the WHERE i.e. courtrooms, schools etc. SCOTUS wisely choose not to enumerate all the many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms in the Heller decision. My conclusion is Heller and McDonald belong the second paragraph of the lead because they define the meaning of 2A per SCOTUS and Miller does not because it is just one of a myriad of restrictions. It is in the body where it belongs. Prohibitions and restrictions are rightly mentioned as part of the ditca.Grahamboat (talk) 19:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I say you should edit the page as you indicate above. I have the page on my watchlist, and I will deal with any disruptive editing by Inijones (Inijones, you are encouraged to stop your disruptive behavior and become a productive member of the Wikipedia community). I will also review your edits and let you know if I see any obvious problems. In other words, improve the article to the best of your ability and WP:IAD. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that Grahamboat was taking us through their reasoning when they decided to not modify the lead. North8000 (talk) 12:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Clarifying one point, I don't think that there was any sincere question raised about simply putting Miller in the lead. The only times it was brought up were when it was presented as being a (mis)characterization of the particular changes that they were trying to war in, which were certainly not just about putting Miller into the lead. . North8000 (talk) 12:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Responding to Grahamboat's thoughts, I agree with you, but via coming at it from a different angle. The first sentence/paragraph is the overview. The second paragraph is IMHO the two largest and highest impact items from the article, rightly chosen. So I'm calling these the two "tier 1" items. IF we were to expand the lead, IMHO we should include the whole "next tier down"/ "tier 2" which could be 4-6 items. (including historical etc.) IMHO, IF we did that, a brief mention of Miller (despite it's narrowness) could be a part of "tier 2" simply because it is a Scotus decision. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I don’t think a “tier 2” is needed but, depending on what was included, I would not strongly object.Grahamboat (talk) 15:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

That was just my vague thoughts. North8000 (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi North8000 - Are you suggesting “tier 2 “ be a history showing the evolution of collective right views to individual right views starting with Miller proceeding through: Lopez/Stewart/Parker/etc ?Grahamboat (talk) 16:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Well my vague idea was that IF we expanded it, include a whole tier 2 which might, for example, include:

• 1 intro sentence explaining that "individual right" was a core question
• 2 sentences on the most prominent items from history of its creation
• One sentence on Miller
• One sentence on the most prominent non-scotus case
• Add 1-2 sentences on Heller/McDonald

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Perhaps we could include in the IF, reducing the amount of material in the body. I’ve always felt that the article was too lengthily to qualify for a Good Article; I especially remember the expansion of the English History from a couple of years ago during an edit dual, but sorry I digress. Grahamboat (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Lede

I think the lede, if it notes the 2 recent decisions (which makes some sense to me), should say something about how (or even why) SCOTUS has for so many years NOT made such landmark rulings, which i believe is the case. otherwise, a reader will ask "wha hoppen?" in regards to 2+ centuries of, well, what? My bias (or belief) is that the current SCOTUS is highly ideological and is making wild political interpretations to benefit certain forces in the US to the detriment of the majority populations wishes, but if this is not consensus (which im sure its not), still, some context for this radical recent change should be noted.(mercurywoodrose) 76.254.36.244 (talk) 03:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Any guess as to how or why SCOTUS didn't make a certain ruling is nothing short of wild speculation. SMP0328. (talk) 03:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The basis for the ruling is in the ruling and summarized in the article. Essentially that the operative clause is the operative clause, and that the preface does not modify it or place conditions on it. North8000 (talk) 10:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Well put North. I'd also question the claim of a "radical recent change". —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 11:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Frivolous request
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Stupid The article should mention how stupid the US Constitution is esp. this amendment. The so called founding fathers were idiots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.127.241 (talk) 08:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC) OK, we'll get right to work on the "The US Constitution is stupid" section. North8000 (talk) 10:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Should Herrington v. United States be in the article?

Highest court in District of Columbia ruled (Nov 4 2011) that, based on Heller, the 2A extends to the right to possess ammunition in the home. Should that be in the article? 99.142.10.228 (talk) 19:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

This article focuses on federal court interpretations of the Second Amendment. D.C.'s courts are the equivalent of State courts. SMP0328. (talk) 19:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Late 20th century commentary section needs work

The Late 20th Century Commentary Section has the following paragraph:

"Under both of the collective rights models, the opening phrase was considered essential as a pre-condition for the main clause.[108] These interpretations held that this was a grammar structure that was common during that era[109] and that this grammar dictated that the Second Amendment protected a collective right to firearms to the extent necessary for militia duty.[110]"

There are several problems here. First, citation 109 (pp. 1-21 of Winterer, Caroline (2002). The Culture of Classicism: Ancient Greece and Rome in American Intellectual Life, 1780-1910. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press) is completely incorrect. There is nothing in that section of that book covering the use of this grammatical construction. Second, citation 110 is to an amicus brief ("Amicus Brief, ACRU, Case No. 03-CV-0213-EGS, Shelly Parker, et al. vs. District of Columbia, p.14") which opposes this reading. It should cite the brief that defends this reading. Dmoerner (talk) 22:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: "Other scholars, such as Glenn Reynolds,". Reynolds is a law professor, not an historian. His opinion is not relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.33.226.194 (talk) 15:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Why should his being a law professor make his opinion irrelevant? SMP0328. (talk) 17:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Tyrannical government

I've asked for a citation in section "Experience in America prior to the U.S. Constitution" for the reference to "deterring tyrannical government"

We need to be accurate. Were there any such mentions of "tyrannical government", as opposed to merely "undemocratic" government. Richardb43 (talk) 23:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I've changed "tyrannical" to "undemocratic", which is reliably sourced (see footnote 25). Because "undemocratic" is reliably sourced, I've removed your cite tag. SMP0328. (talk) 23:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Tyrannical is now sourced. Have restored "tyrannical" in place of "undemocratic". Miguel Escopeta (talk) 22:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Criticism

The article is full of debates on the nature of this amendment and its scope, but I miss a section on criticism of this law per se. Even though they might be a minority, quite a lot of people have argued for its annulment, and I think this discussion should be referred to. Steinbach (talk) 22:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I've seen near-zero (sourcing or activity) regarding efforts to change the constitution in this area. IMHO this is not the route taken by even the critics. But I could be wrong; if such is significantly covered, it should be proportionately covered in the article. If you know of coverage establishing that, you should present it here. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

There is talk however about door to door gun confiscations. Perhaps North8000 knows how likely that is. TFD (talk) 05:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

There is "talk" about every imaginable thought; I don't understand what point you are making. North8000 (talk) 14:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

"the right to bear arms" has been taken out of context without a precise definition of the following three terms: "regulated militia"; "security of a free state"; and "arms". With them well defined, only certain people under certain circumstances are allowed to carry certain types of arms.174.95.61.243 (talk) 21:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

How is it that the introductory paragraph jumps from the date of December 15, 1791 to 2008 and 2010 as if the 2nd Amendment was created with the Bill of Rights and all was great until the Landmark Interpretations of 2008 and 2010? Surely we cannot arbitrarily choose the modern dates without addressing truly Landmark events of 1935, 1968, the 1970's and 1993? I say either the reference to 2008 and 2010 should be removed, or include the other dates which were much more significant in interpretations of the 2nd Amendment.--75.17.207.52 (talk) 21:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Samuel Colt

I wouldn't rule out having other material in the lead. But I don't agree with the criticism. Those were the first rulings on the core issue. North8000 (talk) 21:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The wording could use a sentence in between explaining what the core question was. North8000 (talk) 22:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the wording should be changed so that it does not suggest that these are the only two significant rulings on the second amendment, but simply the most recent, and can mention that these recent (thus, more relevant) rulings have reaffirmed the acquisition and use of firearms.128.252.20.193 (talk) 19:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that would be worded. It's not just that they are the newest, they are kind of stand alone in the sense of being US Supreme Court rulings of that scope on that topic. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The criticism is apt. It is wrong to pretend that there was not a century of jurisprudence prior to 2008 that restricted the Second Amendment to a well-regulated militia. Editors do not have the right to remove relevant citations to Supreme Court decisions and legal scholars that mention this prior history. The article even features a weird jump to Late 20th Century from Early Scholarly Commentary without mentioning the Miller case which held for 60 years. The claim this hotly disputed 5-4 decision overturning centuries of jurisprudence is "generally accepted" is unsourced, non-neutral, and non-verified (and untrue). Let's cite the controversy and be done with it. Or let's go to mediation. I'd be curious to hear from someone who has no POV on whether or not it is proper to insist on unsourced, unverified material in contradistinction to Supreme Court decisions and legal scholarship.GreekParadise (talk) 06:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

This article is POV

The phrase "bear arms" comes from the Latin "arma ferre" which means to wield military weapons in battle ... it cannot possibly refer to an individual right to carry a gun because earlier versions of the amendment included a clause exempting conscientious objectors from bearing arms. Yet not only aren't the actual facts about the meaning of the phrase included in the article, nor the numerous statements of the founders during their debates about the amendment (as opposed to debates about ratification of the Constitution, which occurred earlier), but the very notion that the interpretation of "bear arms" as conferring an individual right is contended by scholars is omitted from the article. Bizarrely, an article by historian Garry Wills in which he vehemently argues against the 2nd amendment as an individual right is given as the citation for the definition of "the right to keep and bear arms" as an individual right in the article of that name. -- 96.248.226.133 (talk) 10:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

While I agree with you, anonymous users tend to have their voices heard less in talk forums. If you want to edit the article, please create an account. If you cannot do that, put a list of changes that you believe should be made (i.e constructive criticism).EDIT: Sorry, I didn't see that you had already added material to the article. Scratch that bit about constructive criticism. Hentheden (talk) 10:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this idea as well, but there are many others who do not, so adding this as the definition of "bear arms" would also be a non-neutral point of view. Also, Wikipedia requires that any editor interesting in making such an edit cite one or more reliable sources, and avoid any form of original research, including the synthesis of information from such sources to express this point of view. Simply adding what you would like to add without doing any of these things would violate three important policies. Also, as outlined at Wikipedia's talk page guideline, talk pages are not to be used as forums. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 00:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't use it as a forum; that accusation, here and on my talk page, is absurd. My comments were quite clearly directed toward the content of the article and its possible improvement. Also absurd is your comment about violating WP policy since I didn't simply add anything to the article ... this is a talk page, for discussion that might lead to changes. Finally, you're violating policy yourself by attacking me and discouraging me from participating ... successfully (congratulations). -- 96.248.226.133 (talk) 07:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

"Sorry, I didn't see that you had already added material to the article. " -- What the heck are you talking about? I didn't touch the article. -- 96.248.226.133 (talk) 08:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that 90% of the above is a call for an out-of-place debate which folks are resisting joining. North8000 (talk) 12:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Ignoring the discussion on the definition of "bear arms" (which shouldn't be on this talk page, sorry for overlooking that Redsoxfan), 96.248.226.133 does make a good point about the use of the citation of the article by Gary Wills, mentioned at the end of his post. Should something be done about this (for lack of a better formulation)? Hentheden (talk) 12:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

There are no specifics in the post (nothing on which section, which specific text or which cite is involved) it seems more thrown in to bolster the "POV trash" slam (in before-rewording-title) . So I don't even know which text or cite they are talking about. I've never read Willis but heard that he goes both ways on this issue. Agree that he may not be the best source on a "individual right" statement....US Supreme court or somebody covering the decision would be a better source. North8000 (talk) 13:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

"it seems more thrown in to bolster the "POV trash" slam" -- this is utter nonsense and is a personal attack violating an assumption of good faith. I was quite specific: I said it was a citation in the article named "the right to keep and bear arms", and it is as anyone can go see. -- 96.248.226.133 (talk) 08:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

"I've never read Willis but heard that he goes both ways on this issue" -- You can't even be bothered to spell his name correctly when it's right in front of you. What you have "heard" would be irrelevant even if it were true (which it isn't) because, as I said, he argues vehemently against an individual right to bear arms in the article cited as support for the meaning of "the right to keep and bear arms" in the article of that name, regardless of what he may have argued somewhere else. -- 96.248.226.133 (talk) 08:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, this is a discussion about article content, and you still have given no specifics in your post on what specific section / text/ cite in the article that you are talking about. North8000 (talk) 10:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

"arma ferre"? What is your proof of the meaning of this Latin phrase? And why would you try to impose Latin on English? Are you claiming that "bear" came from Latin instead of the Germanic branch of Indo-European? And if you want to go Latin, are you going to claim that the phrase refers to the kinds of weapons the Romans used? Swords, not guns? Nonsense. "To wield military weapons in battle"? If that is what "bear arms" meant, then it would have meant that men should own and bear canons, Sherman tanks, F86 Sabers, hydrogen bombs, etc.; which is ridiculous. The kind of arms which men bore at that time in history were not military weapons, but regular guns & pistols, which might be used also in an army, but were common possessions possessed by right by common persons. The 2nd Amendment recognizes a pre-existent right, a right which is appropriate for common citizens to be able to form a militia; thus it includes such weapons as would make an effective militia (today by necessity including fully automatic rifles). But it does not limit arms to arms typically used by military. (EnochBethany (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC))

Who the Heck is Davies?

Footnote 5 says, "Davies, pp. 209–16." This footnote is defective as there is no previous Davies note. First name of Davies, the name of the work, and date are needed. (EnochBethany (talk) 17:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC))

Davies has apparently been corrected, but DeConde has no previous footnote. I've marked these with citation needed tags. Two of the DeConde references have an ISBN number, so it looks like they're all most likely references to Gun Violence in America : The Struggle for Control, by Alexander Deconde, 416 Pages, Published 2001 by Northeastern, ISBN-13: 978-1-55553-486-8, ISBN: 1-55553-486-4 but I don't have a copy, so I can't verify it. Could somebody look at this?

Smith and Schmidt are ambiguous.

Some references are incomplete, like "Young, David E., The Founders' View of the Right to Bear Arms", Cress, Lawrence. An Armed Community: The Origins and Meaning of the Right to Bear Arms, Tench Coxe, "Remarks On The First Part Of The Amendments To The Federal Constitution", none of which have publishers or dates.—MiguelMunoz (talk) 19:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

District of Columbia v. Heller - documentation error

This paragraph at the end of the Notes and Analysis sub-section of District of Columbia v. Heller is presented in the main text:

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

However, it's a quotation from the cited source and needs to be indented. Also, a sentence is omitted from the quotation between the first and the second sentence presented, so an ellipsis should be used. Copper Bezel (talk) 09:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I marked it with quote marks and put in the ellipsis. North8000 (talk) 12:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 January 2013

In Federalist No. 29, Alexander Hamilton suggested that well-regulated refers not only to "organizing", "disciplining", and "training" the militia, but also to "arming" the militia: (however it should be noted that the federalist papers were advocating the passage of a Constitution with no bill of rights, so Hamilton could not have been talking about the second amendment. 67.249.246.183 (talk) 01:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, could be specific on the proposed change? I.E. exactly what text to you propose putting in, and where? North8000 (talk) 22:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Recent attempts to change the lede

If we want to add something about Miller to the lede, it should reflect what the article says about Miller, not one side of that issue. It is popular these days to portray the 2008 decision as being inconsistent with Miller, but Miller did not clearly interpret the amendment as being related to the militia, it merely questioned whether a sawed-off shotgun would be useful to a militia. The 2008 decision was the first which directly addressed the meaning of the amendment. Please stop trying to insert the POV that everyone agreed with the one interpretation before 2008. Celestra (talk) 21:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Celestra. The implication that it reverses a previous SCOTUS finding is unsourced and contrary to the sourced material. North8000 (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

It is POV to suggest that Heller did not overturn Miller. Miller said gun ownership protected under the Second Amendment has "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." If you disagree that Heller overruled Miller -- as every legal scholar I have read has found, including Jeffrey Toobin whom I cited -- then cite the controversy rather than claiming a disputed thing is true. I'll put up a POV tag until this thing is resolved.GreekParadise (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The Heller rejected the type of reading of Miller you describe. It said Miller referred to the type of firearms covered by the Second Amendment Maybe it would better to put that in the article, Introduction and/or elsewhere, if it isn't already. That would better than saying Heller overruled Miller. Officially, it did not and really it is beside the point. The point is what Heller said the Second Amendment means. SMP0328. (talk) 23:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it is a stretch to call Toobin a legal "scholar". He is a legal analyst and journalist. He refers to a scholarly paper in the Harvard Law Review, which says at one point "For many, constitutional law changed because the Court interpreted the Second Amendment in accordance with the understandings of the Americans who ratified it: Heller marks the "Triumph of Originalism." Others saw the case very differently, observing that the Court had interpreted the Second Amendment in accordance with the convictions of the twentieth-century gun-rights movement and so had demonstrated the ascendency of the living Constitution." Clearly, from that, we can see that there are two schools of thought. Failing to present one of those schools of thought as the "truth" is the opposite of POV. Please remove the POV tag from the article.

On the other hand, I think that we used to have text in the lede which did express that there was disagreement over the meaning of the Second Amendment prior to Heller and I think it would be good to have that or similar text return. It is part of the history the Second Amendment. Likewise, I think we should express that some scholars don't agree with the Court's interpretation, but I don't feel as strongly about that. Celestra (talk) 01:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I support this. And I'm willing to take a stab at it if you agree. Let's present both schools of thought as part of the history of the Second Amendment and not just the pro-Heller view which was not accepted by the Supreme Court until 2008.GreekParadise (talk) 20:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the tag. This dispute is about what should be said about Miller within this article. Nothing has said to suggest that the article in general is POV. SMP0328. (talk) 02:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

See below where I describe in great detail why the historical analysis in the article is POV in its unusual depiction of pre-Heller history and law under the Second Amendment, as cited by the Library of Congress and mainstream legal historians. I have no problem with both historical views (the mainstream view and the current article's view) being represented, but every time I tried to present the mainstream view in addition to this article's view, my additions and suggestions were summarily removed. Until we resolve this by accurately showing both sides of the historical controversy, I respectfully request you put back the POV tag.GreekParadise (talk) 07:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

"Generally accepted" that Second Amendment confers individual right is POV

The text said without citation it is "generally accepted" that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to carry a gun. Actually, as the cases and commentary I cited conclusively show, it was "generally accepted" that the Second Amendment conferred a collective right to bear arms in a well regulated militia for more than a century by both the Supreme Court and lower courts until the Heller Supreme Court decision in 2008, a hotly contested 5-4 decision that overruled this long-standing collective view that dates back to ratification. I don't dispute that there are two views or that the debate is hotly contested, but I think it is POV to say that the recent decision by the Supreme Court is "generally accepted" and particularly to do so without citation to a poll or scholarly article. The best thing is to simply state the truth, without POV, that the Second Amendment is the only Amendment to give a stated purpose (this is true and the law journal article I cited backs it up) and that the Supreme Court in Heller said that the purpose does not expand or limit the Amendment. The reason the Heller decision was a landmark decision was because it changed prior law. If it merely restated prior law, it would not be a "landmark decision" It would be ordinary. GreekParadise (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

It was landmark because it was the first SCOTUS decision on the individual right question. North8000 (talk) 21:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. It was the first case to determine that the Second Amendment confers an individual right (within limitations and restrictions). Case law prior to 2008 (see, e.g., Miller 1939) said it was a collective right relating to a milita. (See the several scholarly references I included. But you don't have to believe the scholars because that's what the Supreme Court actually said. Read Miller) What purpose does it serve (other than POV-pushing) to refuse to let the wikipedia audience know that it was the first case to determine an individual right? Heller was a landmark case because it overturned prior law, just as Brown v. Board of Education was landmark because it overturned Plessy v. Ferguson. If Heller had just restated existing law, it would not be an important case worthy of including in the introduction. I also don't see why you want to delete from the article the important mention that the Second Amendment is the only part of the Bill of Rights with a stated purpose. We should state the controversy and not take sides in it. Just because someone believes some hotly contested thing to be true does not make it "generally accepted." GreekParadise (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

A Supreme Court decision can be a landmark decision without overruling any earlier Supreme Court decisions (e.g., Roe v. Wade). Besides, Heller rejected reading Miller to be limiting the Second Amendment to protecting only a collective right or a militia-based individual right. This resulted in the overruling of numerous U.S. Courts of Appeals decisions dating back to the 1940s. SMP0328. (talk) 23:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

They had to be overruled because the validity of the militia clause was the generally accepted opinion of the Courts from the 1940's to 2007 (after Miller in 1939), although the Library of Congress states the militia clause was accepted by courts as defining the Second Amendment as early as 1875. See below.GreekParadise (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Prior to Heller, reasonable people could have different opinions about the meaning of the Second Amendment because the Supreme Court had not unambiguously decided that meaning. Since the Supreme Court is the body that decides how to interpret the constitution, after Heller there can be no reasonable disagreement about the meaning, just about the decision. I don't see the problem with saying that the meaning is "now generally accepted". It gets across the recent nature of that acceptance. It does not say that everyone agrees with the interpretation, just that generally people accept that that is the official interpretation. The changes you attempted gave the impression that prior to Heller, the court had decided on the other interpretation, which is simply not true. Please remove the POV tag from that section. Celestra (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

You do not have the right to claim your opinion is "generally accepted" without citing any sources. If you say the Supreme Court held it for the first time in 2008, that's fine. Would you say Roe v. Wade is "generally accepted"? You could say it only if you had a poll that showed that 90% of the people accept it. Wikipedia does not allow you to make up stuff. Please add a source or accept the removal.GreekParadise (talk) 05:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The meaning of the Second Amendment is not decided by a poll; it is decided by the Supreme Court. Prior to Heller, the court had not unambiguously interpreted that amendment. Now they have. Your change to that section tries to push a POV that everything was one way before the decision and another way after and that simply isn't a neutral interpretation. Please provide some reference which suggests that the interpretation made by the body which is responsible for interpreting the constitution is not generally accepted. Celestra (talk) 16:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

If your meaning is that the Supreme Court decides the law, that's fine. That's true. But "generally accepted" to me implies public acceptance. Otherwise what does it mean? Imprecise language should be removed. As for public acceptance, would you be fine if I said that Roe v. Wade is generally accepted or that the case allowing the Government to use public domain for private gain is generally accepted? I would argue both decisions, although they are the law decided by the Supreme Court, have and continue to be roundly criticized by many. Plus there is no citation for generally accepted. Is that your opinion, Celestra, or do you have a source for it? You know you can't post your opinion on wikipedia, of course. So if there's no source, it has to go. You can't even say the movie Titanic made a lot of money without a source and that's generally known. So how could you say something this controversial and make it unsourced? Please remove the language or suggest a way to make it more precise. You could say something like the Supreme Court decision in 2008 has made the individual rights argument the law of the land. That's true and requires no citation or subjectivity.GreekParadise (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I have changed "generally accepted" (which is vague and implies public acceptance) to "generally accepted by the courts" which is unambiguously true after Heller. That solves the problem and I have removed the POV tag.GreekParadise (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

That section is talking about the models used by the court. If you want to make that more explicit without inserting your POV about the collective rights model, please suggest a wording. Clarifying that use of the phrase while adding an unsubstantiated claim of "generally accepted" for the collective model prior to 2008 is hardly reasonable. Celestra (talk) 19:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I plan to cite the Library of Congress article (and its bibliography of more than 30(!) scholarly books and articles) as my source. See http://loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php . You can't get much more reliable than that. Please review this short article. My hope is, based on that reference, you will withdraw your objection or propose alternative language. The only reason I didn't include the Library of Congress on the main page as a footnote is I wanted to see if you would accept it before working hard to put the reference in proper form. Please understand I am not disputing that Heller is current law. The dispute is about what the law was pre-Heller. And as SMP028 points out above, Heller overruled numerous decisions dating back to the 1940's.GreekParadise (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

That isn't an article, it is just an overview. The overview is written by an unnamed person, so the person's reputation for accuracy is unknown. The level of review is likewise unknown. Looking at the content, the paragraph which mentions federal court cases has no citation, but the last sentence refers the reader to a Congressional Research Service document. (That document is writtten after the oral arguments, but before the decision on Heller, so it wouldn't reflect the details of the decision, but it seems accurate as far as I know.) It has a section on US v Emerson, which the overview doesn't mention. Based on those three problems, I wouldn't use the overview as a source for this article. Izno has removed the phrase which you found to be POV and the result seems NPOV to me. It would be good if you would remove the POV tag from that section. Celestra (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Both sides of "militia" controversy should be mentioned. Strong POV problem

This article pretends that the Heller decision uncontroversially made no changes to existing law. But the Library of Congress disagrees with this article's current historical and legal account. Citing more than two dozen of the most important legal scholars in the country on the Second Amendment, the Library of Congress presents what is considered non-controversial outside of the current draft of this article: the proposition that the "militia" language in the Second Amendment modifying the "right to bear arms" language was the standard interpretation of the Second Amendment by US courts from at least 1875 until 2008. See http://loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php.

The Library of Congress, like most legal scholars in discussing the pre-Heller history, places great reliance on the Miller decision which unanimously found in 1939 that only weaponry with "some reasonable relationship to any preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" is protected under the Second Amendment. That point of view was consistently upheld by courts in the United States prior to the Heller decision in 2008.

Miller held that the "militia" language was an essential part of the Second Amendment and not mere unnecessary surplus words that the Founders could have either placed in the Amendment or taken out without changing the Amendment's meaning. Strict constitutional constructionists also believe that no words of the Constitution are mere surplusage. According to CNN's prominent senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, the militia view was clear and uncontroversial for more than 100 years, until a reconstituted NRA first argued in 1977 the "novel legal theory" that the first thirteen words of the Second Amendment are meaningless. See http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/12/jeffrey-toobin-second-amendment.html

Even conservative former Chief Justice Warren Burger rejected the individual right to bear arms theory as a crock by the NRA, saying in 1991: "[The Second Amendment] has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word 'fraud,' on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime." And of course the four dissenting justices in Heller strongly disagree with the historical analysis of the five-vote majority (and their point of view should be mentioned as well).

I don't ask editors to take sides on this issue. Heller is obviously current law. But in an article purporting to discuss the history of the Second Amendment, the view that existed for more than a hundred years should be stated rather than jumping from "early scholarship" to the "late twentieth century". No doubt, people disagree on the history as well. Some believe Heller changed nothing. Others accept the more mainstream view cited by former Chief Justice Burger, Toobin, the Library of Congress, and many other (probably the vast majority of) legal scholars.

But an article in wikipedia cannot present one side of a hotly disputed historical and legal controversy as an unvarnished "generally accepted" truth.

If some editors wish to express the particular historical view of those that support the decision with citations from reputable legal scholars to the effect that Heller changed nothing, that is fine by me. But then they are equally obligated to report the more mainstream historical and legal view reflected in the Library of Congress, a non-partisan branch of Government that considers the current article's view so far out of the mainstream that it does not even address this point of view as a legitimate one.

The Supreme Court opinion in Heller is no more "generally accepted" than the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade. True the Heller opinion, like Roe, is current law, but many Americans and many legal scholars strongly disagree with both decisions.

Perhaps it would be best to simply have two sections. "Individual rights proponents" (who argue that the militia dependent clause is irrelevant surplusage) and "Militia rights proponents (who argue that the first thirteen words of the Amendment modify and condition the remaining words)". Then both sides of the controversy could be represented fairly.GreekParadise (talk) 07:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

IMO there are may flaws / errors is your statements / arguments above, but there no need to worry about talk page statements. Now, on to the content question. The SCOTUS interpretation is the binding interpretation. Most of your content related discussion revolve around the presence of a unqualified "generally accepted" statement but that is no longer in there. Both viewpoints on the core quesiton are covered. Is there a open content question? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, at the very time you wrote this comment, Celestra again undid my revision. So the unsourced and ambiguous "generally accepted" statement is back. I've removed it more than once but been reverted each time. I won't put it again without consensus although I will reinstate the POV tag if there is no consensus. However, if it is now conceded that "the law" as dictated by the Supreme Court and "general public acceptance" are indeed two different concepts as I believe, and that the latter concept is inaccurate while the former description, as you say, is accurate, then, with your permission, I will again attempt to take out the improperly sourced and inaccurate language and replace it with "generally accepted by the US Courts." Or perhaps better put "the law since 2008." OK? (I believe there are many open content issues, as I have described in great detail, but I agree to resolve this issue first.)

Definitely not "law since 2008". It dates back to the initial adoption of the bill of rights. 2008 was merely the authoritative interpretation of it with respect to that question. I think that "generally accepted" for that particular question is also correct, but I am neutral about whether "generally accepted" is in or out. But I'm certainly against replacing it with something that is inaccurate. North8000 (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no more reliable source on judicial interpretation of the Second Amendment than an official Congressional Research Report for Congress. According to CRS at 3, "judicial treatment of the Second Amendment for the remainder of the twentieth century [in the decades following Miller] almost summarily concluded that the Amendment conferred only a collective right to keep and bear arms." I would like to rewrite the lede based on the information in CRS. Please review it yourself: http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34446_20080411.pdf I do not know of a single firearms statute in the country that was ever declared unconstitutional by any court in the entire United States in any year prior to 2008. Do you? According to CRS, the first time the individual rights interpretation is ever even mentioned in US Law is the Emerson (Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, 2001) and even that one did not enforce the Second Amendment to strike down a statute.GreekParadise (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

As for "generally accepted", given that it is absolutely proper to say the Supreme Court in Heller accepted the individual view and established it as law, and given that that is said elsewhere, what does "generally accepted" mean to you? You mean in opinion polls? In a poll of legal scholars? By US courts? It needs to be clarified. I submit that Heller has been "generally accepted" only by the Courts, who are, of course, required by law to adhere to Supreme Court decisions. Does "generally accepted" have any other meaning to you?GreekParadise (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, I said that I think that "generally accepted"is correct, but am neutral about whether or not it is used in the article. So unless it goes back in, that particular phase is a moot point. But, as a sidebar, the reason why I consider it to be accurate is that whether they like the result or not, most are considering that aspect to be settled because SCOTUS made THE ruling on it. North8000 (talk) 12:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

On the other points I think that it is quite clear that that question was considered to be unsettled-in-the-courts prior to Heller. Long story short IMHO your efforts to have the article imply or make it appear otherwise are efforts at spin. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I removed generally accepted as WP:WEASEL. If we want to talk about who accepts that interpretation (the public at large, the SCOTUS, legal scholars), then we should talk about who and provide the associated citations. --Izno (talk) 17:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Slave patrols

This motivation for the amendment is mentioned tangentially in the Experience in America prior to the U.S. Constitution section and there is one existing ref that mentions this point. Here is a more comprehensive treatment. Thom Hartmann (2013-01-15). "The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery". Truthout. Retrieved 2013-01-20. Does the slave partols motivation deserve greater prominence in the article? -—Kvng 21:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Considering that that piece has about the lowest credibility regarding bias imaginable and even even they completely failed to establish the assertion of their title, such is more of an indicator that the title is wrong. Moreover the brief material in this article on that topic says the opposite, albeit possibly equally without basis. If we could find something solid which indicates this we should put it in, if not not. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

It looks like the source for both the Truthout (above) and Mother Jones pieces is Bogus, Carl (1998). "The Hidden History of the Second Amendment". U.C. Davis L. Rev. 31. Retrieved 2013-01-21. This is in the references section of the article but there is no footnote currently using it. Seems like a solid secondary source. The fact that prominent tertiary sources use it indicates that the ideas, although potentially flawed, are at least notable and probably deserve some mention. -—Kvng 21:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Its long; I just skimmed it. It kind of wandered all over the place, basically trying to refute any and all concepts that would support the 2A granting rights. But what surprised me particularly is that while the abstract says its about purporting that the 2A is to suppress slaves, only about 10% of the article is actually about that, and even most of that 10% was about the general conditions in the south, ...wanting to continue slavery and wanting to suppress slaves, with little about firearms. Also that they were trying to woo the south, particularly Virginia. And then it describes who wrote it and it evolution, but I saw nothing in there directly supporting the "to suppress slaves" theory. Sort of like 1 + 1 = 10. Again, this was just a skim. North8000 (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Concise evolution of understanding about the meaning of the Second Amendment

The CRS document which is linked from GB's LOC overview is a worthwhile read. It is brief and presents several points in the evolution of understanding of the Second Amendment which might be good to capture in the article. Celestra (talk) 01:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a quality summary of the court aspects prior to Heller. North8000 (talk) 01:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Since we all agree this is a good reliable source, I will quote from it, add the citations to the article, and remove the POV tag.GreekParadise (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Arms policies in Europe

The wiki article contains several statements about arms policies in Europe. However, all of them erroneous. Most kingdoms of Europe let their citizens purchase, make, sell, own and use firearms and other arms freely right up until the first World War. Several countries even after that. I grew up in Norway in the 1960s and 1970s, and there any 16 year old could go to the sports-store or to the gunstore and purchase a shotgun or a rifle and ammunition, no licence needed. Handguns needed a license, but that the store owner could get you over the phone. Nowadays this is changed, to be able to buy a handgun, you must be a member of a gun club. You do need a license for all other firearms as well these days, but these licenses are formalia only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perolden (talk • contribs) 09:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

New lede

As I've discussed above, I believe the lede unfairly presents the Second Amendment as solely having one definitive interpretation from 1791 until today. That simply is not true as a matter of history or law, and I think it is our job at wikipedia to tell both sides of a complex legal history.

I propose two solutions, a long lede and a short lede. The long lede includes a fair and relatively brief history of judicial interpretations of the Second Amendment. I prefer the long lede. But if it's believed to be too long, then I am willing to go with the short lede and put the other historical information in the body of the article. Please let me know which lede you prefer. (I have not detailed the citations yet but I have provided them so you know the sources are impeccable.)

In the interests of achieving consensus, I have not yet changed the main article but instead seek comment below.

Proposed Long Lede

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is part of the United States Bill of Rights which protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms from infringement and cites a prefatory reason therefor: “a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.” [Citation: Second Amendment] It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.

For more than two centuries, Americans have disagreed on the meaning of the Second Amendment, the impact of its prefatory militia clause, whether it is an individual right to bear arms or a collective right to serve in a militia, and the extent to which the United States or State Governments were prohibited from infringing on this right. [citation: CRS article http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34446_20080411.pdf]

From 1791 to 2007, no federal appeals court struck down a single gun control law on Second Amendment Grounds. [citation article by the Supreme Court Correspondent for the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06firearms.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0] In the Nineteenth Century, the Supreme Court limited enforcement of the Second Amendment to the Federal Government alone and thus allowed the States to enforce gun regulations. [citation Cruikshank] By the Twentieth Century, the Federal Courts had virtually summarily concluded that the Second Amendment was limited to a collective right to service in a well regulated militia and found the Government could limit any weapons not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” [citation Miller and CRS]

In the Twenty-First Century, a Federal Court first rejected the collective interpretation and held instead that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms, notwithstanding lack of service in a militia. In 2008, the Supreme Court of the United States officially adopted this view, holding expressly that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.

In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment. In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court overruled its earlier decisions limiting the Second Amendment's impact to a restriction on the Federal Government and expressly found that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.

Proposed Short Lede

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is part of the United States Bill of Rights which protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms from infringement and cites a prefatory reason therefor: “a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.” [Citation: Second Amendment]. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.

For more than two centuries, Americans have disagreed on the meaning of the Second Amendment, the impact of its prefatory militia clause, whether it is an individual right to bear arms or a collective right to serve in a militia, and the extent to which the United States or State Governments were prohibited from infringing on this right. [citation: CRS article http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34446_20080411.pdf] From 1791 to 2007, no federal appeals court struck down a single gun control law on Second Amendment Grounds. [citation article by the Supreme Court Correspondent for the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06firearms.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0]

In 2008, the Supreme Court officially held for the first time that the right to bear arms is an individual right within reasonable restrictions determined by the Court and, in 2010, the Court formally found that both Federal and State Governments are restricted from infringing on that right. [Citations Heller and McDonald].GreekParadise (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I don’t like either proposed lede. Where did the “For more than two centuries” come from? I would accept a short sentence “prior the Heller there were mixed views…” added to the second paragraph.Grahamboat (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

…firearms possession listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment. Prior to the Heller decision there was considerable debate over whether the Second Amendment protected an individual right or a collective right (the right of a state to arm its militia). In McDonald v. Chicago…Grahamboat (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I also don't think either of GP's proposal would work. WP:NPOV guides us to mention that there is a dispute, not to engage in that dispute, but the proposals are full of qualifiers and talking points which appear to support a POV which disagrees with the Court's decision. If we look at the First Amendment, we see a neutral lede which decribes what the Amendment protect without qualification and later mentions that the right to free speech is subject to exceptions. It also deals with the incorporation issue in a more neutral way.

I am fine with Grahamboat's suggestion as a start. Celestra (talk) 17:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree, which means "no" on the proposed new leads. The incorporation part is spun so heavy that it reaches the point of deception. North8000 (talk) 22:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi North. Just to be clear are you saying "no" to just GP’s proposals or no to any mention of different interpretations prior to Heller in the lede? ThanksGrahamboat (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Both. The second because there was no prevailing or even majority interpretation on the core question prior to that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I’m not sure exactly what North’s point is. Why is a prevailing or majority interpretation a prerequisite to a brief mention in the lede? There was certainly a difference of opinion prior to Heller. The Fifth Circuit ruled for an individual right in Emerson (2001) and the Ninth Circuit ruling a collective right only in Silveira v. Lockyer (2002). That, IMHO, is enough to justify a mention. Celestra may agree but I think we need more editors to weigh in before reaching a consensus.Grahamboat (talk) 04:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree both that it deserves some mention and that we should get more editors on board before we make any change. I think that the following changes would be improvements:

• Rework info in the second paragraph. It seemed reasonable while it was a current event, but a brief summary of federal court cases (Miller, Cases, Emerson, Sylveira v Lockyer, Parker and Heller) from the CRS paper might make for a better introduction.
• Mention McDonald as being the decision which incorporated the Second Amendment, similar to how we treat incorporation in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
• Mention the disagreement on how to interpret the Amendment prior to Heller.

I'll try to write a section summarizing the CRS paper and a suggestion for the changes to the lede this weekend. Celestra (talk) 05:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The weekend has passed. Not to be pushy, but I'm looking forward to seeing what you come up with. If you can't come up with anything, I'm willing to do a request for comment or go to mediation.GreekParadise (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Request re Perkins

The Eighth Circuit citation is to a case that has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. U.S. v. PERKINS 526 F.3d 1107 (2008) United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. Submitted: January 14, 2008. This case concerns sentencing issues, not Second Amendment issues. Observer375 (talk) 19:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. It doesn't mention the Second Amendment. It doesn't even post-date Heller. I've removed it. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Is the Supreme Court correspondent of the New York Times used frequently in wikipedia a reliable source?

Adam Liptak, the Supreme Court correspondent of the New York Times (biography here: http://www.nytimes.com/ref/us/bio-liptak.html and on wikipedia: http://www.nytimes.com/ref/us/bio-liptak.html was considered a reliable source for his reporting on the McDonald decision (see footnote 4) but his front-page story (not an op-ed) was deemed unreliable by a couple of editors here for his reporting on pre-Heller case law. I submit that Liptak IS a reliable source for all his reporting and that I may add information from his front-page story here: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06firearms.html, just as it already has been added in footnote 89 here (not by me): http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms. Does anyone still dispute his reliability? Presuming he is good enough (and unless someone continues to argue for the contrary), I will proceed to cite this very important article in this entry.GreekParadise (talk) 15:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

You are mixing apples and oranges. Trying to put a far reaching assertion/opinion from an op ed in as a fact in the voice of Wikipedia IMHO misses the mark by several levels. This is a different question from wp:rs which both his articles and most articles in NRA publications may meet. But nobody is claiming "POV" for failure to use an NRA op ed for the lead. North8000 (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

A front page story by a reporter is not an op ed. Unless you have some source claiming it is an op-ed, I will ask you to please refrain from this characterization. It is no more an op-ed than the article cited by the same reporter in footnote 4.GreekParadise (talk) 04:54, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree, but setting that aside that is only one of invalid layers in the construction needed to support what you are promoting doing. (Please take my brevity (including directness) as mere brevity, not as the roughness that it appears to be, because I do not intend the latter.) The layers are:

• Wanting to present a broad (mis)characterization in contested area as fact in the voice of wikipedia
• Faulty, as detailed above. Interpreting a lack of a finding of the opposite (during the period where the core question didn't matter much) as being a finding.
• Use of a cherry picked piece
• Use of an op ed piece
• Wanted to put it into the lead versus the body, a direct violation of what the lead should be

Again, please take my brevity (including directness) as mere brevity, not as the roughness that it appears to be, because I do not intend the latter. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

North, the lede is currently cherry picked. It cites only one interpretation of the Second Amendment (the Heller case) in the lede and wants to end it there, rather than putting Heller in its historical context as the most recent interpretation of the federal courts, contrasting with the long-running contrary interpretation that existed for more than sixty years prior (and, for McDonald, more than 130 years prior). If you want to take the Heller and McDonald decisions completely out of the lede, and just have the first two sentences, ending with 1791, that is justifiable and NPOV but I believe quite sparse. But once you put in the most recent interpretation, I think you have to briefly include the ones that existed for many decades, and as many as 130 years prior, as well. The judiciary's interpretation of the Second Amendment did not begin in 2008, and this is, after all, an entry on the Second Amendment and not on the Heller decision. In my bolded compromise, I put far more focus on Heller and McDonald then under the interpretations in the centuries precedent. All I ask is for one small sentence and one small portion of a sentence to put the Heller and McDonald decisions in their proper context. They were landmark decisions, but they would not have been landmark if they had merely restated current law. Again, I note that the wikipedia entry on Brown v. Board of Education mentions Plessy v. Ferguson (the case it overturned) in the second sentence of the lede. GreekParadise (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The first three paragraphs sound like an op-ed, but, if you read beyond that, you see that's not where it goes. The Times does not label it an op-ed. It cannot be discounted in this way.

The lead lacks any discussion of the interpretation of the Amendment prior to Heller. Introduction of a bit of this material in the lead would be very welcome. And would be in line with WP:NPOV and WP:RECENT. -—Kvng 13:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Kvng, do you support revising the lead as per what I have written in bold above (adding citations of course, including the NYT article and others I have cited, such as the Congressional Research Service and the Library of Congress, to back up every word written)? GreekParadise (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I suggest we keep lede change discussions in the Possible revisions in lead section. Grahamboat (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I looked at that discussion only in enough detail to understand that the solution is not there yet. It looked like User:Celestra had a good plan but it hasn't been executed. I will see if I can find some time to make a more significant contribution to that discussion a little later. -—Kvng 23:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 February 2013

On the second amendment to the United States Constitution page, it was recently changed from: "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."

to: 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 in order to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states [1].

With [1] pointing to http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery

Reading that article, there is alot of text that the author or someone else added to the original words, as shown by brackets [] in many places of the article. To me the article is biased, just reading through it i can see how the meaning of what's being said changes from slave patrol militias being a possibility, to trying to say it definitely was a reason. This possible reason has been listed with the other purposes under "Experience in America prior to the U.S. Constitution" section for some time now, and i see no reason it should be specifically listed at the start of the article.

There is no reason "in order to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states" should be listed at the start of the article separate from the other 'purposes' listed later on the page. Especially not in it's current form at the start of the article worded in a fashion that attempts to positively exert it as a purpose, when it is allegedly one of the purposes early English settlers viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important.

I hereby request the removal of "in order to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states [1]." from the first sentence, for the above reasons, and on grounds of no one particular 'purpose' should be listed separately whether alleged or positively known to be one of the 'purposes' that the "early English settlers viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important".

Not to mention several sources that say it was a 'purpose' are not hard facts sources, hence why it is in the list with the rest of the 'purposes' lower on the page as "suppressing insurrection, allegedly including slave revolts"

XXxDSMer (talk) 08:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

That set of edits had an immense list of problems...reverted. North8000 (talk) 12:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I concur with North. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

New lede

As I've discussed above, I believe the lede unfairly presents the Second Amendment as solely having one definitive interpretation from 1791 until today. That simply is not true as a matter of history or law, and I think it is our job at wikipedia to tell both sides of a complex legal history.

− − I propose two solutions, a long lede and a short lede. The long lede includes a fair and relatively brief history of judicial interpretations of the Second Amendment. I prefer the long lede. But if it's believed to be too long, then I am willing to go with the short lede and put the other historical information in the body of the article. Please let me know which lede you prefer. (I have not detailed the citations yet but I have provided them so you know the sources are impeccable.)

− − In the interests of achieving consensus, I have not yet changed the main article but instead seek comment below.

− − Proposed Long Lede

− − The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is part of the United States Bill of Rights which protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms from infringement and cites a prefatory reason therefor: “a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.” [Citation: Second Amendment] It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.

− − For more than two centuries, Americans have disagreed on the meaning of the Second Amendment, the impact of its prefatory militia clause, whether it is an individual right to bear arms or a collective right to serve in a militia, and the extent to which the United States or State Governments were prohibited from infringing on this right. [citation: CRS article http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34446_20080411.pdf]

− − From 1791 to 2007, no federal appeals court struck down a single gun control law on Second Amendment Grounds. [citation article by the Supreme Court Correspondent for the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06firearms.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0] In the Nineteenth Century, the Supreme Court limited enforcement of the Second Amendment to the Federal Government alone and thus allowed the States to enforce gun regulations. [citation Cruikshank] By the Twentieth Century, the Federal Courts had virtually summarily concluded that the Second Amendment was limited to a collective right to service in a well regulated militia and found the Government could limit any weapons not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” [citation Miller and CRS]

− − In the Twenty-First Century, a Federal Court first rejected the collective interpretation and held instead that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms, notwithstanding lack of service in a militia. In 2008, the Supreme Court of the United States officially adopted this view, holding expressly that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.

− − In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment. In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court overruled its earlier decisions limiting the Second Amendment's impact to a restriction on the Federal Government and expressly found that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.

− − Proposed Short Lede

− − The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is part of the United States Bill of Rights which protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms from infringement and cites a prefatory reason therefor: “a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.” [Citation: Second Amendment]. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.

− − For more than two centuries, Americans have disagreed on the meaning of the Second Amendment, the impact of its prefatory militia clause, whether it is an individual right to bear arms or a collective right to serve in a militia, and the extent to which the United States or State Governments were prohibited from infringing on this right. [citation: CRS article http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34446_20080411.pdf] From 1791 to 2007, no federal appeals court struck down a single gun control law on Second Amendment Grounds. [citation article by the Supreme Court Correspondent for the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06firearms.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0]

− − In 2008, the Supreme Court officially held for the first time that the right to bear arms is an individual right within reasonable restrictions determined by the Court and, in 2010, the Court formally found that both Federal and State Governments are restricted from infringing on that right. [Citations Heller and McDonald].GreekParadise (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

− −

I don’t like either proposed lede. Where did the “For more than two centuries” come from? I would accept a short sentence “prior the Heller there were mixed views…” added to the second paragraph.Grahamboat (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

−

…firearms possession listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment. Prior to the Heller decision there was considerable debate over whether the Second Amendment protected an individual right or a collective right (the right of a state to arm its militia). In McDonald v. Chicago…Grahamboat (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

−

I also don't think either of GP's proposal would work. WP:NPOV guides us to mention that there is a dispute, not to engage in that dispute, but the proposals are full of qualifiers and talking points which appear to support a POV which disagrees with the Court's decision. If we look at the First Amendment, we see a neutral lede which decribes what the Amendment protect without qualification and later mentions that the right to free speech is subject to exceptions. It also deals with the incorporation issue in a more neutral way.

−

I am fine with Grahamboat's suggestion as a start. Celestra (talk) 17:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

−

Agree, which means "no" on the proposed new leads. The incorporation part is spun so heavy that it reaches the point of deception. North8000 (talk) 22:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

− −

Hi North. Just to be clear are you saying "no" to just GP’s proposals or no to any mention of different interpretations prior to Heller in the lede? ThanksGrahamboat (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

−

Both. The second because there was no prevailing or even majority interpretation on the core question prior to that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

− −

I’m not sure exactly what North’s point is. Why is a prevailing or majority interpretation a prerequisite to a brief mention in the lede? There was certainly a difference of opinion prior to Heller. The Fifth Circuit ruled for an individual right in Emerson (2001) and the Ninth Circuit ruling a collective right only in Silveira v. Lockyer (2002). That, IMHO, is enough to justify a mention. Celestra may agree but I think we need more editors to weigh in before reaching a consensus.Grahamboat (talk) 04:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

− −

I agree both that it deserves some mention and that we should get more editors on board before we make any change. I think that the following changes would be improvements:

−

• Rework info in the second paragraph. It seemed reasonable while it was a current event, but a brief summary of federal court cases (Miller, Cases, Emerson, Sylveira v Lockyer, Parker and Heller) from the CRS paper might make for a better introduction.

−

• Mention McDonald as being the decision which incorporated the Second Amendment, similar to how we treat incorporation in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

−

• Mention the disagreement on how to interpret the Amendment prior to Heller.

−

I'll try to write a section summarizing the CRS paper and a suggestion for the changes to the lede this weekend. Celestra (talk) 05:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

− The weekend has passed. Not to be pushy, but I'm looking forward to seeing what you come up with. If you can't come up with anything, I'm willing to do a request for comment or go to mediation.GreekParadise (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Lede discussion revived from archive. Please do not archive until consensus is reached on lede

−

How is it that the introductory paragraph jumps from the date of December 15, 1791 to 2008 and 2010 as if the 2nd Amendment was created with the Bill of Rights and all was great until the Landmark Interpretations of 2008 and 2010? Surely we cannot arbitrarily choose the modern dates without addressing truly Landmark events of 1935, 1968, the 1970's and 1993? I say either the reference to 2008 and 2010 should be removed, or include the other dates which were much more significant in interpretations of the 2nd Amendment.--75.17.207.52 (talk) 21:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Samuel Colt

− −

I wouldn't rule out having other material in the lead. But I don't agree with the criticism. Those were the first rulings on the core issue. North8000 (talk) 21:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

−

The wording could use a sentence in between explaining what the core question was. North8000 (talk) 22:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

− −

Perhaps the wording should be changed so that it does not suggest that these are the only two significant rulings on the second amendment, but simply the most recent, and can mention that these recent (thus, more relevant) rulings have reaffirmed the acquisition and use of firearms.128.252.20.193 (talk) 19:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

−

I'm not sure how that would be worded. It's not just that they are the newest, they are kind of stand alone in the sense of being US Supreme Court rulings of that scope on that topic. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

− −

The criticism is apt. It is wrong to pretend that there was not a century of jurisprudence prior to 2008 that restricted the Second Amendment to a well-regulated militia. Editors do not have the right to remove relevant citations to Supreme Court decisions and legal scholars that mention this prior history. The article even features a weird jump to Late 20th Century from Early Scholarly Commentary without mentioning the Miller case which held for 60 years. The claim this hotly disputed 5-4 decision overturning centuries of jurisprudence is "generally accepted" is unsourced, non-neutral, and non-verified (and untrue). Let's cite the controversy and be done with it. Or let's go to mediation. I'd be curious to hear from someone who has no POV on whether or not it is proper to insist on unsourced, unverified material in contradistinction to Supreme Court decisions and legal scholarship.GreekParadise (talk) 06:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

−

Recent attempts to change the lede

− If we want to add something about Miller to the lede, it should reflect what the article says about Miller, not one side of that issue. It is popular these days to portray the 2008 decision as being inconsistent with Miller, but Miller did not clearly interpret the amendment as being related to the militia, it merely questioned whether a sawed-off shotgun would be useful to a militia. The 2008 decision was the first which directly addressed the meaning of the amendment. Please stop trying to insert the POV that everyone agreed with the one interpretation before 2008. Celestra (talk) 21:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

−

Agree with Celestra. The implication that it reverses a previous SCOTUS finding is unsourced and contrary to the sourced material. North8000 (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

−

It is POV to suggest that Heller did not overturn Miller. Miller said gun ownership protected under the Second Amendment has "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." If you disagree that Heller overruled Miller -- as every legal scholar I have read has found, including Jeffrey Toobin whom I cited -- then cite the controversy rather than claiming a disputed thing is true. I'll put up a POV tag until this thing is resolved.GreekParadise (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

−

The Heller rejected the type of reading of Miller you describe. It said Miller referred to the type of firearms covered by the Second Amendment Maybe it would better to put that in the article, Introduction and/or elsewhere, if it isn't already. That would better than saying Heller overruled Miller. Officially, it did not and really it is beside the point. The point is what Heller said the Second Amendment means. SMP0328. (talk) 23:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

−

I think it is a stretch to call Toobin a legal "scholar". He is a legal analyst and journalist. He refers to a scholarly paper in the Harvard Law Review, which says at one point "For many, constitutional law changed because the Court interpreted the Second Amendment in accordance with the understandings of the Americans who ratified it: Heller marks the "Triumph of Originalism." Others saw the case very differently, observing that the Court had interpreted the Second Amendment in accordance with the convictions of the twentieth-century gun-rights movement and so had demonstrated the ascendency of the living Constitution." Clearly, from that, we can see that there are two schools of thought. Failing to present one of those schools of thought as the "truth" is the opposite of POV. Please remove the POV tag from the article.

−

On the other hand, I think that we used to have text in the lede which did express that there was disagreement over the meaning of the Second Amendment prior to Heller and I think it would be good to have that or similar text return. It is part of the history the Second Amendment. Likewise, I think we should express that some scholars don't agree with the Court's interpretation, but I don't feel as strongly about that. Celestra (talk) 01:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

− I support this. And I'm willing to take a stab at it if you agree. Let's present both schools of thought as part of the history of the Second Amendment and not just the pro-Heller view which was not accepted by the Supreme Court until 2008.GreekParadise (talk) 20:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

−

I've removed the tag. This dispute is about what should be said about Miller within this article. Nothing has said to suggest that the article in general is POV. SMP0328. (talk) 02:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

−

See below where I describe in great detail why the historical analysis in the article is POV in its unusual depiction of pre-Heller history and law under the Second Amendment, as cited by the Library of Congress and mainstream legal historians. I have no problem with both historical views (the mainstream view and the current article's view) being represented, but every time I tried to present the mainstream view in addition to this article's view, my additions and suggestions were summarily removed. Until we resolve this by accurately showing both sides of the historical controversy, I respectfully request you put back the POV tag.GreekParadise (talk) 07:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

− −

"Generally accepted" that Second Amendment confers individual right is POV

− − The text said without citation it is "generally accepted" that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to carry a gun. Actually, as the cases and commentary I cited conclusively show, it was "generally accepted" that the Second Amendment conferred a collective right to bear arms in a well regulated militia for more than a century by both the Supreme Court and lower courts until the Heller Supreme Court decision in 2008, a hotly contested 5-4 decision that overruled this long-standing collective view that dates back to ratification. I don't dispute that there are two views or that the debate is hotly contested, but I think it is POV to say that the recent decision by the Supreme Court is "generally accepted" and particularly to do so without citation to a poll or scholarly article. The best thing is to simply state the truth, without POV, that the Second Amendment is the only Amendment to give a stated purpose (this is true and the law journal article I cited backs it up) and that the Supreme Court in Heller said that the purpose does not expand or limit the Amendment. The reason the Heller decision was a landmark decision was because it changed prior law. If it merely restated prior law, it would not be a "landmark decision" It would be ordinary. GreekParadise (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

−

It was landmark because it was the first SCOTUS decision on the individual right question. North8000 (talk) 21:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

−

Exactly. It was the first case to determine that the Second Amendment confers an individual right (within limitations and restrictions). Case law prior to 2008 (see, e.g., Miller 1939) said it was a collective right relating to a milita. (See the several scholarly references I included. But you don't have to believe the scholars because that's what the Supreme Court actually said. Read Miller) What purpose does it serve (other than POV-pushing) to refuse to let the wikipedia audience know that it was the first case to determine an individual right? Heller was a landmark case because it overturned prior law, just as Brown v. Board of Education was landmark because it overturned Plessy v. Ferguson. If Heller had just restated existing law, it would not be an important case worthy of including in the introduction. I also don't see why you want to delete from the article the important mention that the Second Amendment is the only part of the Bill of Rights with a stated purpose. We should state the controversy and not take sides in it. Just because someone believes some hotly contested thing to be true does not make it "generally accepted." GreekParadise (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

−

A Supreme Court decision can be a landmark decision without overruling any earlier Supreme Court decisions (e.g., Roe v. Wade). Besides, Heller rejected reading Miller to be limiting the Second Amendment to protecting only a collective right or a militia-based individual right. This resulted in the overruling of numerous U.S. Courts of Appeals decisions dating back to the 1940s. SMP0328. (talk) 23:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

−

They had to be overruled because the validity of the militia clause was the generally accepted opinion of the Courts from the 1940's to 2007 (after Miller in 1939), although the Library of Congress states the militia clause was accepted by courts as defining the Second Amendment as early as 1875. See below.GreekParadise (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

−

Prior to Heller, reasonable people could have different opinions about the meaning of the Second Amendment because the Supreme Court had not unambiguously decided that meaning. Since the Supreme Court is the body that decides how to interpret the constitution, after Heller there can be no reasonable disagreement about the meaning, just about the decision. I don't see the problem with saying that the meaning is "now generally accepted". It gets across the recent nature of that acceptance. It does not say that everyone agrees with the interpretation, just that generally people accept that that is the official interpretation. The changes you attempted gave the impression that prior to Heller, the court had decided on the other interpretation, which is simply not true. Please remove the POV tag from that section. Celestra (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

−

You do not have the right to claim your opinion is "generally accepted" without citing any sources. If you say the Supreme Court held it for the first time in 2008, that's fine. Would you say Roe v. Wade is "generally accepted"? You could say it only if you had a poll that showed that 90% of the people accept it. Wikipedia does not allow you to make up stuff. Please add a source or accept the removal.GreekParadise (talk) 05:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

−

The meaning of the Second Amendment is not decided by a poll; it is decided by the Supreme Court. Prior to Heller, the court had not unambiguously interpreted that amendment. Now they have. Your change to that section tries to push a POV that everything was one way before the decision and another way after and that simply isn't a neutral interpretation. Please provide some reference which suggests that the interpretation made by the body which is responsible for interpreting the constitution is not generally accepted. Celestra (talk) 16:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

−

If your meaning is that the Supreme Court decides the law, that's fine. That's true. But "generally accepted" to me implies public acceptance. Otherwise what does it mean? Imprecise language should be removed. As for public acceptance, would you be fine if I said that Roe v. Wade is generally accepted or that the case allowing the Government to use public domain for private gain is generally accepted? I would argue both decisions, although they are the law decided by the Supreme Court, have and continue to be roundly criticized by many. Plus there is no citation for generally accepted. Is that your opinion, Celestra, or do you have a source for it? You know you can't post your opinion on wikipedia, of course. So if there's no source, it has to go. You can't even say the movie Titanic made a lot of money without a source and that's generally known. So how could you say something this controversial and make it unsourced? Please remove the language or suggest a way to make it more precise. You could say something like the Supreme Court decision in 2008 has made the individual rights argument the law of the land. That's true and requires no citation or subjectivity.GreekParadise (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

− I have changed "generally accepted" (which is vague and implies public acceptance) to "generally accepted by the courts" which is unambiguously true after Heller. That solves the problem and I have removed the POV tag.GreekParadise (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

−

That section is talking about the models used by the court. If you want to make that more explicit without inserting your POV about the collective rights model, please suggest a wording. Clarifying that use of the phrase while adding an unsubstantiated claim of "generally accepted" for the collective model prior to 2008 is hardly reasonable. Celestra (talk) 19:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

−

I plan to cite the Library of Congress article (and its bibliography of more than 30(!) scholarly books and articles) as my source. See http://loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php . You can't get much more reliable than that. Please review this short article. My hope is, based on that reference, you will withdraw your objection or propose alternative language. The only reason I didn't include the Library of Congress on the main page as a footnote is I wanted to see if you would accept it before working hard to put the reference in proper form. Please understand I am not disputing that Heller is current law. The dispute is about what the law was pre-Heller. And as SMP028 points out above, Heller overruled numerous decisions dating back to the 1940's.GreekParadise (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

−

That isn't an article, it is just an overview. The overview is written by an unnamed person, so the person's reputation for accuracy is unknown. The level of review is likewise unknown. Looking at the content, the paragraph which mentions federal court cases has no citation, but the last sentence refers the reader to a Congressional Research Service document. (That document is writtten after the oral arguments, but before the decision on Heller, so it wouldn't reflect the details of the decision, but it seems accurate as far as I know.) It has a section on US v Emerson, which the overview doesn't mention. Based on those three problems, I wouldn't use the overview as a source for this article. Izno has removed the phrase which you found to be POV and the result seems NPOV to me. It would be good if you would remove the POV tag from that section. Celestra (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

− −

Both sides of "militia" controversy should be mentioned. Strong POV problem

− − This article pretends that the Heller decision uncontroversially made no changes to existing law. But the Library of Congress disagrees with this article's current historical and legal account. Citing more than two dozen of the most important legal scholars in the country on the Second Amendment, the Library of Congress presents what is considered non-controversial outside of the current draft of this article: the proposition that the "militia" language in the Second Amendment modifying the "right to bear arms" language was the standard interpretation of the Second Amendment by US courts from at least 1875 until 2008. See http://loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php.

− − The Library of Congress, like most legal scholars in discussing the pre-Heller history, places great reliance on the Miller decision which unanimously found in 1939 that only weaponry with "some reasonable relationship to any preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" is protected under the Second Amendment. That point of view was consistently upheld by courts in the United States prior to the Heller decision in 2008.

− − Miller held that the "militia" language was an essential part of the Second Amendment and not mere unnecessary surplus words that the Founders could have either placed in the Amendment or taken out without changing the Amendment's meaning. Strict constitutional constructionists also believe that no words of the Constitution are mere surplusage. According to CNN's prominent senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, the militia view was clear and uncontroversial for more than 100 years, until a reconstituted NRA first argued in 1977 the "novel legal theory" that the first thirteen words of the Second Amendment are meaningless. See http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/12/jeffrey-toobin-second-amendment.html

− − Even conservative former Chief Justice Warren Burger rejected the individual right to bear arms theory as a crock by the NRA, saying in 1991: "[The Second Amendment] has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word 'fraud,' on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime." And of course the four dissenting justices in Heller strongly disagree with the historical analysis of the five-vote majority (and their point of view should be mentioned as well).

− − I don't ask editors to take sides on this issue. Heller is obviously current law. But in an article purporting to discuss the history of the Second Amendment, the view that existed for more than a hundred years should be stated rather than jumping from "early scholarship" to the "late twentieth century". No doubt, people disagree on the history as well. Some believe Heller changed nothing. Others accept the more mainstream view cited by former Chief Justice Burger, Toobin, the Library of Congress, and many other (probably the vast majority of) legal scholars.

− − But an article in wikipedia cannot present one side of a hotly disputed historical and legal controversy as an unvarnished "generally accepted" truth.

− − If some editors wish to express the particular historical view of those that support the decision with citations from reputable legal scholars to the effect that Heller changed nothing, that is fine by me. But then they are equally obligated to report the more mainstream historical and legal view reflected in the Library of Congress, a non-partisan branch of Government that considers the current article's view so far out of the mainstream that it does not even address this point of view as a legitimate one.

− − The Supreme Court opinion in Heller is no more "generally accepted" than the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade. True the Heller opinion, like Roe, is current law, but many Americans and many legal scholars strongly disagree with both decisions.

− − Perhaps it would be best to simply have two sections. "Individual rights proponents" (who argue that the militia dependent clause is irrelevant surplusage) and "Militia rights proponents (who argue that the first thirteen words of the Amendment modify and condition the remaining words)". Then both sides of the controversy could be represented fairly.GreekParadise (talk) 07:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

− −

IMO there are may flaws / errors is your statements / arguments above, but there no need to worry about talk page statements. Now, on to the content question. The SCOTUS interpretation is the binding interpretation. Most of your content related discussion revolve around the presence of a unqualified "generally accepted" statement but that is no longer in there. Both viewpoints on the core quesiton are covered. Is there a open content question? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

−

Unfortunately, at the very time you wrote this comment, Celestra again undid my revision. So the unsourced and ambiguous "generally accepted" statement is back. I've removed it more than once but been reverted each time. I won't put it again without consensus although I will reinstate the POV tag if there is no consensus. However, if it is now conceded that "the law" as dictated by the Supreme Court and "general public acceptance" are indeed two different concepts as I believe, and that the latter concept is inaccurate while the former description, as you say, is accurate, then, with your permission, I will again attempt to take out the improperly sourced and inaccurate language and replace it with "generally accepted by the US Courts." Or perhaps better put "the law since 2008." OK? (I believe there are many open content issues, as I have described in great detail, but I agree to resolve this issue first.)

− Definitely not "law since 2008". It dates back to the initial adoption of the bill of rights. 2008 was merely the authoritative interpretation of it with respect to that question. I think that "generally accepted" for that particular question is also correct, but I am neutral about whether "generally accepted" is in or out. But I'm certainly against replacing it with something that is inaccurate. North8000 (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

−

There is no more reliable source on judicial interpretation of the Second Amendment than an official Congressional Research Report for Congress. According to CRS at 3, "judicial treatment of the Second Amendment for the remainder of the twentieth century [in the decades following Miller] almost summarily concluded that the Amendment conferred only a collective right to keep and bear arms." I would like to rewrite the lede based on the information in CRS. Please review it yourself: http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34446_20080411.pdf I do not know of a single firearms statute in the country that was ever declared unconstitutional by any court in the entire United States in any year prior to 2008. Do you? According to CRS, the first time the individual rights interpretation is ever even mentioned in US Law is the Emerson (Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, 2001) and even that one did not enforce the Second Amendment to strike down a statute.GreekParadise (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

−

As for "generally accepted", given that it is absolutely proper to say the Supreme Court in Heller accepted the individual view and established it as law, and given that that is said elsewhere, what does "generally accepted" mean to you? You mean in opinion polls? In a poll of legal scholars? By US courts? It needs to be clarified. I submit that Heller has been "generally accepted" only by the Courts, who are, of course, required by law to adhere to Supreme Court decisions. Does "generally accepted" have any other meaning to you?GreekParadise (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

−

Again, I said that I think that "generally accepted"is correct, but am neutral about whether or not it is used in the article. So unless it goes back in, that particular phase is a moot point. But, as a sidebar, the reason why I consider it to be accurate is that whether they like the result or not, most are considering that aspect to be settled because SCOTUS made THE ruling on it. North8000 (talk) 12:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

−

On the other points I think that it is quite clear that that question was considered to be unsettled-in-the-courts prior to Heller. Long story short IMHO your efforts to have the article imply or make it appear otherwise are efforts at spin. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

−

I removed generally accepted as WP:WEASEL. If we want to talk about who accepts that interpretation (the public at large, the SCOTUS, legal scholars), then we should talk about who and provide the associated citations. --Izno (talk) 17:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

− −

Concise evolution of understanding about the meaning of the Second Amendment

− The CRS document which is linked from GB's LOC overview is a worthwhile read. It is brief and presents several points in the evolution of understanding of the Second Amendment which might be good to capture in the article. Celestra (talk) 01:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

−

Looks like a quality summary of the court aspects prior to Heller. North8000 (talk) 01:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

−

Since we all agree this is a good reliable source, I will quote from it, add the citations to the article, and remove the POV tag.GreekParadise (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Reliable or not reliable?

The following was recently removed from the article:

Patrick Henry, in the Virginia ratification convention June 5, 1788, eloquently argued for the dual rights to arms and resistance to oppression:

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.

The edit summary for the removal provided lack of reliable sourcing as the reason. Is the sourcing provided reliable? If not. why not? SMP0328. (talk) 04:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Change the first cite so it is clear that the source is Patrick Henry's 1788 speech. Wake Forest is merely where you got it. The second source is redundant and probably fails rs, so remove it. TFD (talk) 04:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Neither source meet the requirements of WP:RS. Belchfire-TALK 05:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I've fixed the sourcing of the Patrick Henry material, per TDF's suggestion. I've also restored other recently removed material, but added cite tags to it. There should be a chance for proper sourcing to be added to that material. Only if that fails, should that material be removed. SMP0328. (talk) 05:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I concur with your last sentence, but be advised: the wfu.edu source fails RS, so you might want to start searching for a replacement. The references provided at the end of the page would be a great place to start. Belchfire-TALK 06:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The speech itself does not fail rs and that is the source, not the website. A lot of material used in Wikipedia is taken from reprints posted to websites, such as Google books. Readers and editors are able to check other copies if they choose. The link just is helpful for people who wish to read more. Where we would have problems would be if we used a an article on wfu that summarized the speech and therefore became a secondary source. TFD (talk) 06:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The speech is not the source; the Wakefield web page is the source. It's a secondary source, and secondary sources are not considered reliable unless they have editorial oversight. See WP:RS and WP:V.

The page is just somebody's user space on a university server - it might be a faithful reproduction of the speech, but there is no way to know if anybody's checked it for accuracy. It could be a work of fiction cut from whole cloth, and there's no evidence that anybody would be held accountable if that were the case.

In all likelihood, there's nothing wrong with that version of the speech, but that's not the point. The point is that the Wakefield source doesn't meet the requirements of Wikipedia's policy for secondary sources, and that's the actual answer to the initial question that was asked here. Belchfire-TALK 06:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

See Primary, secondary and tertiary sources: "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved.... A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." Henry's speech is a primary source, while an article commenting on it is a secondary source. And we are allowed to provide external links to copies of primary sources. In fact if the cite had not mentioned where the editor found a copy of the source, you would have no cause for complaint. It seems reasonable however that the Wake Forest University copies of "primary texts", not "just somebody's user space on a university server", would be accurate. This issue comes up occasionally at RSN and the RS talk page, and you are welcome to ask again. TFD (talk) 07:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Wrong again, even if you might be right about what kind of source it is. Look at the policy you linked: "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia;" As I've already pointed out, there is nothing whatsoever to ensure that the Wakefield source is an accurate copy. It's a personal web page, not a reliably published source. Belchfire-TALK 07:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

It was reliably published in the 1700s, which is why we have a record today. There are of course primary sources that have not been reliably published, for example, an account of meeting aliens on a UFO website, and of course we should exclude them. Again if you do not believe me then take it to the RS talk page. TFD (talk) 08:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• You have a remarkable gift for missing the point. Yes, we all know the speech was published a very long time ago - the point is, how do you know you are looking at an accurate copy? In the case of the source being used, you don't know. We should be using a reliable source, and we have guidelines to help us identify such sources. I've already spelled out why the current source fails, per the guidelines. Belchfire-TALK 11:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • There is always an issue when sourced material is inserted into an article whether it accurately reflects the source. When editors question the edit, they may compare it with the source or, if they do not have direct access, may post to Resource Request. When editors add sources there is no requirement to state whether they were using a physical book or an on-line copy. If you are still in doubt you should post to the RS discussion page. A similar issue came up recently regarding Ancestry.com, a user-generated site which includes original and scanned copies of original records. (See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 132#Genealogy databases.) No one questioned whether the records could be used. Incidentally, please try to avoid personal attacks as it detracts from constructive discussion. TFD (talk) 12:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

It would be best however to identify a source where the speech was published, if the university's website is not considered a reliable source. TFD (talk) 08:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. I removed the material. Even if the source was reliable, it doesn't say that Henry was eloquent, or that his statement was an argument "for the dual rights to arms and resistance to oppression." That's synthesis and it has to go. I'll take care of it.

I'm also going to revert the restoration of major chunks of original research. If you want to restore them, the WP:BURDEN is on you to find reliable sources first. — Bdb484 (talk) 16:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I really don't see any discussion about the content and whether or not it should be in the article. I'm just seeing a sidebar discussion on sourcing details. North8000 (talk) 18:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• What else would you expect, since this is a discussion about sourcing details. Take a look at the initial post: " Is the sourcing provided reliable? If not. why not?" Belchfire-TALK 11:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

That was the reason for its removal. While it meets rs, normally we would want a secondary source that establishes its significance. OTOH it seems to be just an example of a speech made in support of ratification by a well-known legislator. Is there anything particularly unusual about Henry's comments? TFD (talk) 18:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

That would be ideal but is not the standard for knocking out material. I'm not saying that it should certainly be in either, just that we should have a discussion tat doesn't sound like just wikilawyering. My first quick thought is that it should be in. These are what people prominent amongst the framers said, includes supporting historical context information, and is consistent with what they ended up with. North8000 (talk) 19:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I have restored the removed material. It should not be removed again, unless we reach a consensus for such removal. Such a large amount of material is should not be removed without consensus. SMP0328. (talk) 20:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, I'm comfortable with the quote being in there with a citation to the speech itself, but I'm not comfortable with SMP's synthesis claiming that it constitutes and eloquent argument for this or that. SMP is getting close to 3RR and should probably exercise greater restraint. — Bdb484 (talk) 08:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I took out the "eloquently". On the second point, SMP has proven themselves extensively/ over a long time to be the calm restrained editor and voice of restraint here. I have not analyzed this situation closely, but at first blush this appears to be another case of them continuing to do that. North8000 (talk) 11:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I've never worked with SMP myself, so I'll take your word for it. Given the extensive edit history, though, he should probably already know that there isn't actually a rule that requires consensus to remove the uncited material and original research that he's added. There's a guideline that notes some people prefer that, but that doesn't make it mandatory. If I'm wrong, I certainly would appreciate someone directing me to that rule.

I'm not going to pull it myself, as it's not worth the edit war/pissing match that I'm concerned about it turning into, but I hope that someone else will take a look and deal with it. — Bdb484 (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe that I did that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

You did grab the "eloquently" bit, which I appreciate. Thank you.

But there is still quite a bit of additional material that constitutes uncited original research. You can see the diffs from SMP's first revert here. — Bdb484 (talk) 20:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I found reliable sourcing here and have added it to the material. SMP0328. (talk) 21:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Erm. I don't think an institution whose writings are intended to perpetuate "a Biblical worldview applicable to present-day problems" constitutes a reliable source. — Bdb484 (talk) 22:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think a "Biblical worldview" makes a source unreliable. Also, that website allows all of the material that we have been discussing viewable together. Finally, I also provided other reliable sourcing for each part of the material that had a cite tag. SMP0328. (talk) 22:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Bdb484's objection reveals (1) that he hasn't read this discussion and therefore doesn't understand why the original source needed to be replaced and (2) that he doesn't understand the relevant policies. I suggest studying WP:RS and WP:SOURCES for a refresher. Belchfire-TALK 23:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Ugh. I appreciate your attempt at condescension. I really do. But if you want to prove you're smarter than everyone, you're going to need to find the nearest elementary school.

The initial objection to this material was in fact never about finding a source to prove that these things were said, but rather about the fact that these sources are being used to support claims that they were intended as an argument "for the dual rights to arms and resistance to oppression," which -- to me -- is a pretty clear case of synthesizing the material. Maybe it's accurate. But we need to find a source whose reliability is not compromised by its goal of imposing a "biblical worldview" on historical events and public policy.

If you disagree with the arguments I'm making, feel free to address them substantively. If you can't, feel free to brush up on WP:DICK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdb484 (talk • contribs)

I agree with Bdb484, you are falling into your own trap here Belchfire. While Bdb484 shouldn't have gone on the personal attack (neither of you should of), how does the biblical website constitute a better source than the university one? How can you know that either of them/both of them are showing an accurate and precise reproduction of the speech? Hentheden (talk) 10:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Since we haven't gotten anywhere recently but have probably both had enough time to cool down, I'm going to open up an RFC to see if we can get some more input. — Bdb484 (talk) 19:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 February 2013

On the second amendment to the United States Constitution page, it was recently changed from: "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."

to: 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 in order to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states [1].

With [1] pointing to http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery

Reading that article, there is alot of text that the author or someone else added to the original words, as shown by brackets [] in many places of the article. To me the article is biased, just reading through it i can see how the meaning of what's being said changes from slave patrol militias being a possibility, to trying to say it definitely was a reason. This possible reason has been listed with the other purposes under "Experience in America prior to the U.S. Constitution" section for some time now, and i see no reason it should be specifically listed at the start of the article.

There is no reason "in order to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states" should be listed at the start of the article separate from the other 'purposes' listed later on the page. Especially not in it's current form at the start of the article worded in a fashion that attempts to positively exert it as a purpose, when it is allegedly one of the purposes early English settlers viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important.

I hereby request the removal of "in order to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states [1]." from the first sentence, for the above reasons, and on grounds of no one particular 'purpose' should be listed separately whether alleged or positively known to be one of the 'purposes' that the "early English settlers viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important".

Not to mention several sources that say it was a 'purpose' are not hard facts sources, hence why it is in the list with the rest of the 'purposes' lower on the page as "suppressing insurrection, allegedly including slave revolts"

XXxDSMer (talk) 08:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

That set of edits had an immense list of problems...reverted. North8000 (talk) 12:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I concur with North. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

New lede

As I've discussed above, I believe the lede unfairly presents the Second Amendment as solely having one definitive interpretation from 1791 until today. That simply is not true as a matter of history or law, and I think it is our job at wikipedia to tell both sides of a complex legal history. pose two solutions, a long lede and a short lede. The long lede includes a fair and relatively brief history of judicial interpretations of the Second Amendment. I prefer the long lede. But if it's believed to be too long, then I am willing to go with the short lede and put the other historical information in the body of the article. Please let me know which lede you prefer. (I have not detailed the citations yet but I have provided them so you know the sources are impeccable.)

In the interests of achieving consensus, I have not yet changed the main article but instead seek comment below. Proposed Long Lede The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is part of the United States Bill of Rights which protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms from infringement and cites a prefatory reason therefor: “a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.” [Citation: Second Amendment] It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.

For more than two centuries, Americans have disagreed on the meaning of the Second Amendment, the impact of its prefatory militia clause, whether it is an individual right to bear arms or a collective right to serve in a militia, and the extent to which the United States or State Governments were prohibited from infringing on this right. [citation: CRS article http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34446_20080411.pdf]

From 1791 to 2007, no federal appeals court struck down a single gun control law on Second Amendment Grounds. [citation article by the Supreme Court Correspondent for the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06firearms.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0] In the Nineteenth Century, the Supreme Court limited enforcement of the Second Amendment to the Federal Government alone and thus allowed the States to enforce gun regulations. [citation Cruikshank] By the Twentieth Century, the Federal Courts had virtually summarily concluded that the Second Amendment was limited to a collective right to service in a well regulated militia and found the Government could limit any weapons not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” [citation Miller and CRS]

In the Twenty-First Century, a Federal Court first rejected the collective interpretation and held instead that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms, notwithstanding lack of service in a militia. In 2008, the Supreme Court of the United States officially adopted this view, holding expressly that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.

In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment. In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court overruled its earlier decisions limiting the Second Amendment's impact to a restriction on the Federal Government and expressly found that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.

Proposed Short Lede

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is part of the United States Bill of Rights which protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms from infringement and cites a prefatory reason therefor: “a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.” [Citation: Second Amendment]. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.

For more than two centuries, Americans have disagreed on the meaning of the Second Amendment, the impact of its prefatory militia clause, whether it is an individual right to bear arms or a collective right to serve in a militia, and the extent to which the United States or State Governments were prohibited from infringing on this right. [citation: CRS article http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34446_20080411.pdf] From 1791 to 2007, no federal appeals court struck down a single gun control law on Second Amendment Grounds. [citation article by the Supreme Court Correspondent for the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06firearms.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0]

In 2008, the Supreme Court officially held for the first time that the right to bear arms is an individual right within reasonable restrictions determined by the Court and, in 2010, the Court formally found that both Federal and State Governments are restricted from infringing on that right. [Citations Heller and McDonald].GreekParadise (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I don’t like either proposed lede. Where did the “For more than two centuries” come from? I would accept a short sentence “prior the Heller there were mixed views…” added to the second paragraph.Grahamboat (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

…firearms possession listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment. Prior to the Heller decision there was considerable debate over whether the Second Amendment protected an individual right or a collective right (the right of a state to arm its militia). In McDonald v. Chicago…Grahamboat (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I also don't think either of GP's proposal would work. WP:NPOV guides us to mention that there is a dispute, not to engage in that dispute, but the proposals are full of qualifiers and talking points which appear to support a POV which disagrees with the Court's decision. If we look at the First Amendment, we see a neutral lede which decribes what the Amendment protect without qualification and later mentions that the right to free speech is subject to exceptions. It also deals with the incorporation issue in a more neutral way.

I am fine with Grahamboat's suggestion as a start. Celestra (talk) 17:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree, which means "no" on the proposed new leads. The incorporation part is spun so heavy that it reaches the point of deception. North8000 (talk) 22:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi North. Just to be clear are you saying "no" to just GP’s proposals or no to any mention of different interpretations prior to Heller in the lede? ThanksGrahamboat (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Both. The second because there was no prevailing or even majority interpretation on the core question prior to that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I’m not sure exactly what North’s point is. Why is a prevailing or majority interpretation a prerequisite to a brief mention in the lede? There was certainly a difference of opinion prior to Heller. The Fifth Circuit ruled for an individual right in Emerson (2001) and the Ninth Circuit ruling a collective right only in Silveira v. Lockyer (2002). That, IMHO, is enough to justify a mention. Celestra may agree but I think we need more editors to weigh in before reaching a consensus.Grahamboat (talk) 04:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree both that it deserves some mention and that we should get more editors on board before we make any change. I think that the following changes would be improvements:

• Rework info in the second paragraph. It seemed reasonable while it was a current event, but a brief summary of federal court cases (Miller, Cases, Emerson, Sylveira v Lockyer, Parker and Heller) from the CRS paper might make for a better introduction.

• Mention McDonald as being the decision which incorporated the Second Amendment, similar to how we treat incorporation in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

• Mention the disagreement on how to interpret the Amendment prior to Heller.

I'll try to write a section summarizing the CRS paper and a suggestion for the changes to the lede this weekend. Celestra (talk) 05:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The weekend has passed. Not to be pushy, but I'm looking forward to seeing what you come up with. If you can't come up with anything, I'm willing to do a request for comment or go to mediation.GreekParadise (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC) Bump.GreekParadise (talk) 15:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your general inclination that the intro could stand to be revised along these lines, but I see some problems with your specific recommendations.

- "For more than two centuries, Americans have disagreed on the meaning of the Second Amendment"

-- This is hard to support. There wasn't much debate about the second amendment until the late 20th century. When George Washington commanded a federalized militia larger than any regiment he commanded during the war, to suppress the tax protest known as the Whiskey Rebellion, I don't think there was much debate about what the 2nd amendment was for. In the Federalist, quelling insurrection (with extensive discussion of the shay's rebellion) was a key purpose envisioned for the militia.

- "From 1791 to 2007, no federal appeals court struck down a single gun control law on Second Amendment Grounds"

-- This seems easier to verify. The origin of gun control legislation in the US, for example, can be traced to that brief period of time known as the "wild west" http://www.ndsu.edu/pubweb/~rcollins/scholarship/guns.html

- "In the Twenty-First Century, a Federal Court first rejected the collective interpretation"

-- I don't think this is exactly accurate. Heller added a new interpretation, and the court's opinion was clear that it did not mean to contravene prior interpretations.

Inijones (talk) 15:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Elephant in the room

I feel compelled to identify the elephant in the room here. This article seems dominated by a small group of editors with a political agenda, towards the 'individual rights' viewpoint. While since 2008, the 'individual' viewpoint has been added; it is incorrect to downplay the collective viewpoint that existed for 220 years of 2A history, from 1787-2007. Worse, in 2008 the individual viewpoint was first recognized as augmenting the collective viewpoint; and it did not replace it. Yet, the article gets this wrong; due to agenda pushing by a small energetic group of politically motivated editors. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 17:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

What is generally meant by the collective view is that the only right is collective, i.e. that there is no individual right. So, determining / confirming an individual right does negate the most common meaning of collective view. I 'spose there could be other meanings of collective which do not conflict with individual right.....for example that the collective right also exists, but I think that that is taken as a given rather than being just a view. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Scalia in Heller wrote: "These provisions demonstrate—again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia". So, it is pretty clear with the words "not limited to" that he views the 2A as pertaining to both a collective 'bear arms in a militia' meaning and also it includes a limited self-defensive meaning, such as with lawful guns inside the home. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 18:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, agree/ that is true but, per my previous post, is an unusual (= not the usual) meaning of collective right which was the assertion that it was only a collective right. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I can only guess what you are reading when you make the claim 'unusual'. My guess is that it is seen in the gun blogs? We really should put our blinders on and not be letting unreliable sources influence us here in any way. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 21:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Salty, remember AGF and civility. You should not accuse editors of knowingly using unreliable sources. SMP0328. (talk) 21:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Give him a chance to answer my question before you jump down my throat with your accusation. I think my guess is probably accurate. On what basis is he claiming 'unusual'? Certainly, he did not state. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 22:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Salty, I think that it is not even controversial:

1. "Collective right" generally refers to the belief or opinion that the "only" right is collective, so the common meaning of "collective right" is "there is no individual right".
2. The instance that you just pointed to refers to having a collective right and an individual right co-existing.

And so what I was saying that #1 is the common meaning, and that the #2 meaning is clearly different than #1. Is there anything there that you even disagree with? To tell you the truth I thought that I was just pointing out something that you would agree with, and certainly not something so controversial that you would launch in such a nasty rant over. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Saying 'everybody knows it' is not how to source a claim on Wikipedia. "nasty rant" you say? So much for your admonition to be civil. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 23:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

You are completely mist-sating what I said so we're not having a real discussion. But what would you call the meaning in what you cited? Where it says that both collective and individual right exist. Would you call that the usual or unusual meaning of "collective right"? North8000 (talk) 01:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I actually did address your questions see above post dated 18:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC). Scalia was very clear that the prior SCOTUS rulings, especially Miller, (though also Cruikshank, and Presser) which were militia based rights questions; were not invalidated by Heller. The Heller ruling augmented the prior rulings with its new individual right component to the Second Amendment. If your hang up is the use of the word 'collective', I could understand that. Perhaps calling it 'militia based' and 'self defense based' rights might work for you? SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 16:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Salty, you are essentially changing the conversation with each thread to where I don't even know what your question or assertion is. What I thought it was about is this:

1. You pointed out where they said that a collective right exists in addition to and individual right.
2. I agreed and noted that example is using an unusual meaning of the word "collective". And gave the details of that.
3. I don't even know what you are asserting or disputing. I asked two questions which would clarify what you are asserting or disputing, and you didn't answer either of them.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

See the top of the thread. I am attempting to point out the elephant in the room here. The editing of this article has been dominated by a small group of energetic politically motivated editors. Skewed treatment of the 'collective viewpoint' in the article is one example of this. (Among many.) In light of the Heller reference I cited above, the article incorrectly describes the collective model using 'past tense' language; as Heller augmented the collective viewpoint with an individual viewpoint. Heller did not invalidate the militia 'collective' viewpoint seen in Miller as the past tense wording in the article implies. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 19:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, now I understand where you are coming from. If you want to end thread now, that's cool. If you want to discuss to sort it out a bit more, then let me ask whether or not you agree with this statement:

On 2A topics, "collective right" view usually refers to a view that there there is only a collective right, and that there is not an individual right.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with that statement. Regardless, talk pages on Wikipedia are not places to discuss personal opinion in any case. My beef is that the article has been skewed by a small group of energetic politically motivated editors who have inserted their personalpolitical bias, one good example being the incorrect use of 'past tense' to describe of the militia based component of the Second Amendment. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 21:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'm confused by your answer but thanks for it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the way SaltyBoatr's observation about how "Heller augmented the collective viewpoint with an individual viewpoint" connects to his/her observation about "the incorrect use of 'past tense'" is rhetorical.

Past tense implies that one interpretation is no longer valid; Heller implies that a new interpretation was added to past interpretations, though this should not be taken to mean that one interpretation amputated the previous. In Heller, the majority opinion states: "Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47." The decision also states: "None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes." So just as there are problems with characterizing Heller as a departure from precedent, there are problems with characterizing the effect of Heller as invalidating the previous state of affairs.

Observations about rhetoric are not insignificant, as rhetoric is one of the classical arts of persuasion, and and analysis of rhetorical terms used in the article is an important part of maintaining as much of a NPOV as possible. That is, to the greatest extent possible, this article should be expository, not persuasive per se. Inijones (talk) 14:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Obscuring the common meaning of the "collective right" theory

The common meaning of "collective right" in 2A debates is NOT:

1. that a collective right exists, it IS:
2. the now-obsolete view that ONLY a collective right exists.

We may be seeing a tactic to confuse the two, to use the obvious existence of #1 to try to try to put in wording that implies that the assertions in #2 did not get authoritatively rebuked. North8000 (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's a malicious tactic, and wouldn't read any bad faith into any confusion, but I do think that the meaning of these terms and the relative importance of these nuances could be discussed further and clarified. I think on certain points, there are two parties here talking past each other. I think people sometimes use words that imply certain things to certain audiences, even if they don't mean to use those words as shorthand for something else.

129.89.130.117 (talk) 23:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Good points. I think that the clarification of #1 and #2 is still useful....leaving out the "now obsolete" which some folks would not agree on, it is:

The common meaning of "collective right" in 2A debates is NOT:

1. that a collective right exists, it IS:
2. the view that ONLY a collective right exists.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The exclusive nature of the "only" and emotional connotations of "now-obsolete" are not something I personally have a strong view on. I hope other editors chime in here. In terms of any possible subtext to discussions on these points, I would think most editors here who support gun control would also support the freedom to hunt or defend a home, and would readily acknowledge that there is an individual right to bear arms.

In terms of how you're phrasing the "collective rights" interpretation, I think it might parse easier phrased in the positive, rather than by negation (better not to define it in terms of what it isn't). "Obsolete" sounds like it carries negative emotional connotations; maybe phrase positively as "superseding interpretation" or "additional interpretation" or "amended interpretation" or something like that.

What I think is a likely point of contention along these lines is where this right comes from and how it came about. I think, as noted elsewhere, conversations about this can quickly devolve into emotional attempts to re-litigate the last few years of case law, either to weaken one position, or to make another appear stronger. Inijones (talk) 02:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Any reference to various interpretations of the Second Amendment should be objective, rather than subjective. This means describing any interpretation without showing it in a positive or negative light. It doesn't mean not referring to Supreme Court decisions. It certainly means not using words like "obsolete," as such wording is clearly POV. SMP0328. (talk) 03:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I specifically rewrote it to remove the "now-obsolete". And my post has a very narrow intention......just to point out the common meaning of one term (and "only" is central to that) and just to help unscramble talk page discussions revolving around the term, not as proposed article content. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)