Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

SMP - what is OR about this?

The collective rights view that the term "well regulated" means under the control or "regulation" of a government, has been discredited by the US Supreme Court, which accepted the archaic usage of that term in Heller.

The above is straight from the US Supreme Court. Are you stating that referencing US Supreme Court opinion is original research? Because if you are, then abut half the article needs to be deleted.

Wiki states is OK to "call a spade a spade" and the US Supreme Court has DISCREDITED the collective rights interpretation that well regulated, means under government regulation. While some here may not like it, the fact remains that it is true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SPADE

This page in a nutshell: It's okay to call a spade a spade — to speak plainly — but remember to remain civil, and to stay focused on improving the encyclopedia.

and

To "call a spade a spade" is to speak honestly and directly about a topic, specifically topics that others may avoid speaking about due to their sensitivity or embarrassing nature. Brewer’s Dictionary of Phrase and Fable (1913) defines it as

To be outspoken, blunt, even to the point of rudeness; to call things by their proper names without any “beating about the bush”141.154.76.26 (talk) 14:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought the footnote was a comment by you; I didn't see the quote marks. My mistake. I have restored the SCOTUS quote to the article, but not your interpretation of that quote. I'm not saying your interpretation is right or wrong, just that it's OR. SMP0328. (talk) 17:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Issue with the with the word "re-affirmed" in Presser

I can't see how a lower court can re-affirm a Supreme Court decision as stated below

Thus, the Presser Court, by stating "the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state," re-affirmed Cruikshank,[citation needed] wherein it had stated: "The second amendment declares that it [the right] shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than it shall not be infringed by congress."

A lower court can only "follow" a Supreme Court ruling or "challenge" based on some legal issue not considered or wrongly considered by the Supreme Court. Supreme Court ruling do get overturned, even if only once in a blue moon. Per the dictionary meaning of re-affirm - "to state again" only the Supreme Court can re-affirm its own rulings.

Propose that re-affirmed be changed to something like "FOLLOWED"141.154.76.26 (talk) 14:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Ignore the above. For some reason I was under the impression Presser never made it to the US Supreme Court. My bad!

I think the following constitutes a re-affirming of Cruikshank so I think the [citation needed] should be removed.

But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state. It was so held by this Court in the case of United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 92 U. S. 553, in which THE CHIEF JUSTICE, in delivering the judgment of the Court, said that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes to what is called in @ 36 U. S. 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was perhaps more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the Constitution of the United States."

We seem to be getting quite a few nitpicking complaints, and I admit a few are my fault, but the repeated challenging of easily verifiable material and in some cases "plainly obvious" material is getting a bit out of hand. Examples from just the last couple of days, Calling something "dubious" because a comma is shown as a period, and today, challenging the authority of the Oxford dictionary as a source of word definitions. 141.154.76.26 (talk) 16:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree in part. The Presser Court (being the first High Court decision to consider Cruikshank as precedent) could not have 're-affirmed' it. Simple "affirmed" would be correct; or "followed their precedent" would also be correct. (Mr. Justice W.B. Woods, who wrote the Presser opinion, served on the U.S. Supreme Court from 1880 to 1887, when he died.) (The cite "U.S." stands for 'United States Reports' wherein only Supreme Court decisions are entered.) (Truwik (talk) 16:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC))

removed citiation needed in Presser as nitpicking

Thus, the Presser Court, by stating "the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state," re-affirmed Cruikshank,[citation needed] wherein it had stated: "The second amendment declares that it [the right] shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than it shall not be infringed by congress."

The 3rd paragraph up from the above is a direct quote from Presser which includes the following

The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against violation of the fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes.

Also changed "re-affirmed" to "followed their precedent" as more accurate.141.154.76.26 (talk) 13:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I accept this. (Truwik (talk) 17:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC))

Synthesis in right to resistance

Salty, please explain how a direct quote is ever synthesis. If you reject Federalist Paper 29 as irrelevant to the Second Amendment, then it shouldn't be used in the other sections of the article either, but you are not advocating that. Hamilton is quite clear in the quoted text, he views a well regulated militia as a means to rebel against a tyrannical standing army, which is directly apropos to the right of resistance against tyranny. Gigs (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

There are a thousand things discussed in the Federalist Papers beyond the Second Amendment. Picking out selective snippet quotes (easily found by using Google searches hitting on gun rights advocacy blogs) does not meet the standards of WP:V, specifically they use improper synthesis. This specific quote gives no indication that Alexander Hamilton is talking about the Second Amendment, jumping to that conclusion appears to be improper synthesis. Similar for the Spooner essay. When I look he is talking of the right to bear arms. It is improper synthesis to equate the right to bear arms (as perceived by Spooner several generations later) to be synonymous with the Second Amendment. Not a strong obvious connection shown. The only connection is tangential and appears to be synthesized to promote and push a political point of view of pro-gun editors here. It would be helpful to find a reliable secondary source describing neutrally what Spooner means, and to avoid direct quotes from the primary document which seems on its face to violate the spirit of WP:PSTS. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you aware that the Federalist Papers were written before the Constitution was passed, never mind before the Bill of Rights was passed? and the Second Amendment is most certainly NOT synonyms with the right to bear arms, it only protects it.141.154.76.26 (talk) 20:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I have removed that tag. That material is simply referring to the fact that Spooner and Scalia referred to Federalist #29 in connection with discussing the Second Amendment. You may believe they improperly did so, but it is a fact that they did do so and so it's not improper to state that within the article. Feel free to add properly sourced material regarding anyone who claims that such a reference is improper. SMP0328. (talk) 22:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

How does the Hamilton quote pertain to the Second Amendment? Please be specific, explicit quotes making the connection. Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

All that material is doing is referring to the connection made by Lysander Spooner and Justice Scalia between Federalist #29 and the Second Amendment. Do you deny they made such a connection? SMP0328. (talk) 23:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

NPOV and excessive use of the term "individual"

I notice that the article uses the term "individual" as in "individual rights", "right of the individual", etc.. a total of 38 times. While I see the recent 5-4 ruling of the SCOTUS last June which for the first time recognized an individual component to the right protected by the Second Amendment, it is not the only component, at present and historically. The heavy emphasis on the term "individual" in the article seems to mirror the political advocacy as opposed to matching the balance found in reliable sourcing and appears excessive which may violates WP:NPOV. This should be discussed and fixed. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

upon what policy are you suggesting that a count of a particular word is violative of NPOV? i lost count of variations on the word "arm", "armed", "disarmed" around 120 iterations. does this mean the article is NPOV? your claim that heller was the first time an individual component was recognized, which contraverts the long history provided in this article of opinion that supports an individual component. are you stating that this article must only discuss SC decisions, and that all other reliably sourced content must be scrubbed? a bold suggestion. not supported by policy. Anastrophe (talk) 16:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

in case i wasn't clear: the phrases you quote - what context were they in? taking single words or phrases out of context and counting them up is not a meaningful metric to determine NPOV, nor is it supported by policy. Anastrophe (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE Suffice it to say, neutrality is still under dispute. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

no, sorry, but a good try. taking single words or phrases out of context does not establish undue weight. please provide context for each of these 38 instances you counted up. then perhaps an argument can be made. absent context, you're just performing your own unique brand of original research on the article. Anastrophe (talk) 16:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You (SaltyBoatr) are just going to have to live with it. Even the Stevens dissent to Heller, stated that the right was an individual right. Using the opinions of Supreme Court Justices as a measuring stick, the collective rights view should have NO article space.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/554/07-290/dissent.html

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

and as for what the Supreme Court thinks of the collective right view

But if “bear arms” means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add “for the purpose of killing game.” The right “to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game” is worthy of the mad hatter.68.160.162.23 (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

SaltyBoatr wonders why we use the term "individual" so much. We do so because you, as an individual, have the right to arms . . . . and because we love you. (Truwik (talk) 13:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC))

I believe that Salty Boatr is now in volation of 3RR

EOM141.154.76.26 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC).

It would help if you would name and quote the 3RRs that you believe SaltyBoatr has exceeded, and the 4th which exceeded that limit. (Truwik (talk) 21:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC))

Deletion made at 17:47, 7 April 2009 is one, deletion of incorporation material on 17:12, 7 April 2009 to be replaced with KKK material counts as two, either of the addbacks made on 14:05, 7 April 2009 or 13:50, 7 April 2009 (only on counts due to no intervening entries by other posters) is three, addback of material deleted by yaf 18:26, 6 April 2009 is four. All are within 24 hours.

I think I forgot about the intervening poster loophole when I originally wrote the notice, but he seems to in violation now. As far as I know adding completely new material does not count toward the rule, but I believe deleting material and replacing it with something totally different (the KKK post ) does.141.154.76.26 (talk) 22:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

If you have to think about exceptions and loopholes, you are probably wikilawyering. Unless a 3RR violation is flagrant, it's not very constructive to bring it up. I'm not too happy with some of Salty's edits either, but this isn't going to get you anywhere. Gigs (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

SaltyBoatr and Yaf got me banned 3 times for exactly the same type of conduct, so I KNOW the rules. The fourth time they had to shut the artice to IP editors to keep me off. 3RR is to prevent edit waring and there can be no "warring" without intervening posts by other editors. "Enforcers" don't have the time to examine the details of all posts and the rule of thumb is 4 posts involving deletion of material, with intervening posts by other editors, is a 3RR violation.141.154.76.26 (talk) 20:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Incorporation

I'm getting a bit tired of seeing all the back and forth on incorporation. I should be simple

Wouldn't it be easier to just create a new subsection called "Incorporation through the 14th Amendment" or something similar and consolidate all the material. Much of it is now duplicated or even triplicate.

Heres an even wilder concept, why not change the lede to state that the Second Amendment continues to apply only to the feds and does not aplly to the states. A WILD WILD WILD concept!!!!!!!141.154.76.26 (talk) 21:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

because the lede has been a battleground for POV pushing by all sides, too many times. the lede is the most public face of an article on wikipedia. that's not to say that the body is not part of the public face (and it needs cleanup); however, the lede must be as succinct as possible, and absolutely and unqualified NPOV. the existing extremely terse lede (which i take full credit for constructing myself, yes, it's true! ;^) has appeared to withstand further POV pushing because it eliminates all potential entryways. let's keep it that way. Anastrophe (talk) 02:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The 'back and forth on incorporation' is partially because of misunderstanding what 'incorporation' means. The word itself is a misnomer. Incorporation is only possible through the 14th Amendment, and, then, it only forces a State to apply its laws equally - it does not mean a State must acquiesce to federal jurisdiction over rights. The 2A has not been so-incorporated, and remains, exclusively, a restriction on the federal government. The intro should reflect that. I agree with 76.26's "WILD concept." (Truwik (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC))

why must the intro reflect that, rather than the body? Anastrophe (talk) 15:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I see no reason that the present lack of Incorporation needs coverage up high in the lede section. The fact that the Second Amendment has never been incorporated to the states should be described down in the article. The fact that a special interest group hopes someday that the 2A will be incorporated can also be covered. There is even a tiny fringe group that argues that it is already incorporated, but this is too tiny a fringe to give coverage. The speculation as to just how the Second Amendment might be incorporated can be covered too, the speculation that it may be incorporated using the 'due process' clause of the Fourteenth Amendment rather than the 'privileges and immunity' clause. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Incorporation is not the issue. Not showing the word "INFRINGE" is the issue. Incorporation would only result in the states ignoring the Second, in in the same way it is ignored by the feds. Some states may even use incorporation to ignore the protections written into the state constitutions using the argument that federal law super cedes state law and if the feds can do something then so can the states.141.154.76.26 (talk) 19:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I meant the 2A's 'restriction on the federal government' should be included in the lede. I was agreeing with 141.154.76.26's above concept. (Truwik (talk) 21:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC))

Following Hamilton quote probably belongs in "Conflict and Compromise"

"If a well regulated militia be the most natural defence of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security."

Knowing that Hamilton was probably the most pro-big government of the Federalists, I think the above quote is actually his opinion that control of the militia should be moved to the federal government, from the states. I believe that "the guardian of the national security" would be the federal government who under the Constitution is the only government body authorized to form an army or navy.141.154.76.26 (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that is what Hamilton advocated, but that isn't what they did. The Constitution (Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 15) provided for the president to call forth the militias "to execute the Laws of the Union", but the militias, otherwise, remained under State control. (Truwik (talk) 21:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC))

I didn't say that is what they did, I just said that Hamilton was advocating total control of the militia by the feds. Since the quote came from the Federalist papers, which were basically arguments on why the Constitution should be accepted, it was in response to objections over making the power "to arm" the militia a SOLE federal power, and not a shared power as under the Articles of Confederation. Hamilton was saying that it wold be best if ALL control of the militia was transferred to the feds and not just the power "to arm" it.

How comfortable would you be if you had a guard, and a possible future enemy had sole responsibility for equipping him? The body of the Constitution gives sole power to the feds to arm the various state militias, and the people, just having fought off one tyranical government, didn't buy Hamilton's argument. They instead chose to protect their right "to arm" themselves. 141.154.76.26 (talk) 22:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

By "I believe that 'the guardian of the national security' would be the federal government" - without more - I assumed you were advocating what Hamilton had proposed. Sorry. (Truwik (talk) 23:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC))

Is there a source for this material?

I have removed the following for lacking sourcing:

Both of these pieces of evidence have interpreted differently by collective rights and civic rights theorists. The Kates example refers to private arms, but since citizens were required by law to own weapons, this particular piece of evidence does not actually answer the question about the military or private function of those arms. Similarly, the usage quoted by Blodgett, taken from the Dissent of the Pennslvania Minority, was never copied by any other ratification convention and was not actually used by Madison in framing the original language of the Second Amendment.

If proper sourcing can be found for this material, it can be restored to the article. For now, it's original research. SMP0328. (talk) 19:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

from the above quote - which has been added back to the article without a supporting quote from the text (which would be nice) - it states "[...]but since citizens were required by law to own weapons,[...]". if they were required by law to own them, then why would they declare that there's a right to keep and bear arms, rather than an obligation to keep and bear arms? typically, duties and obligations are not referred to as rights. Anastrophe (talk) 21:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The fact that those IN the militia were required to have arms because they were part of the militia, does not mean that someone 60 years old does not have the right to have a gun to defend himself, or that a housewife could not have a gun around to defend herself while her hubby was off training, or serving, in the militia or army or navy. Some, including high government officials, were exempt from militia service due to the critical nature of what they did. For instance, not being a militia member does not deprive the President of the US of his right to have a gun to protect himself.141.154.15.7 (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Typically, in this case would mean in modern law-- but we are talking about a legal tradition shaped by an early modern Anglo-American legal traditions. If you look up rights in Blackstone you will see that he describes things that we would call rights and things that we would call obligations. As far as the material removed that critiques Kates et. al., I am pretty sure if you look up Cornell, Northern Kentucky Law Review article-- Don't Know Much About History-- you will see the discussion of why Kates and the other person-- whom I suspect is a law student-- not a scholar-- and both are dead wrong about the Coxe and Pennsylvania Dissent. I have to run so I can't look up the cites on Lexis. Also, why is the Kozuskanich material not been put back? It very clearly challenges Cramer's claims. This article has a tendency to blur history and law-- thus many historical issues have been settled as a matter of law by Heller-- does not mean they are historically correct, but it does mean they are not subject to challenge until the Court changes and I doubt even thenPhilo-Centinel (talk) 22:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Move Tushnet

Tushnet's comments about the contested nature of this debate and the scholarly divisions really belongs at the start of the article not buried in the Reconstruction section. Tushnet concluded that the historical evidence prior to Heller was almost dead even-- with a slight advantage to the individual rights view and the collective rights view slightly head if precedent were controlling and the orthodox reading of Miller remained intake. Obviously after Heller things have changed, but based on Tushnet's post-Heller writings, I think his view would be the case was a straight ideological split and nothing in either the Dissent or the Majority opinion could be called true scholarship. So Heller was a political decision, not a vindication of the historical truth of one or other view. This also seems to be the view of conservative originalist legal scholars such as J. Harvie Wilkinson and Richard Posner. Philo-Centinel (talk) 22:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Added Supreme Court counterpoint to Tushnet141.154.15.7 (talk) 14:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I have clarified Tushnet-- added a discussion of the divided decision in Heller, which both proves Tushnet's point and also makes clear that legally the meaning of the Second Amendment is now no longer in dispute. The scope and application of the Amendment, by contrast, are very much up for grabs. I also deleted the discussion of meaning of arms in 1780 London which really belongs in an article on the history of the right to arms in England, not America.Philo-Centinel (talk) 01:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Overuse of "Meaning and Scope ...Contested"

The following is now appearing twice, almost next to each other, once in the lede and then right after in "Background".

The meaning and scope of this right has been described as among the most contested of the rights codified in the Bill of Rights.

Repeating the same material in such close proximity is IMO bad editorship and I propose that the above be deleted from the lede and retained in Background. 141.154.15.7 (talk) 14:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

SaltyBoatr - please do not use "adding cite" when you are adding new material

Example below

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=283228088&oldid=283224909

Misleading other editors as to what you are doing subtracts from your credibility.141.154.15.7 (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

See this diff[1], I added two cites and corrected one spelling error. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

My mistake141.154.15.7 (talk) 16:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from using "adding cite" when adding back material DELETED BY ANOTHER EDITOR

material deleted by SMP

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=283224909&oldid=283224077

You added back

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=283228088&oldid=283224909141.154.15.7 (talk) 16:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed SMP0328's comment: "If proper sourcing can be found for this material, it can be restored to the article." I was providing the requested cites to sourcing when I restored. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Adding to obscure arguments and references - here is my contribution - Gun control prohibited by "Bill of Attainder" prohibition

Don't worry I won't try to get it into the article

Lets start with some givens

People have inalienable rights

One of those rights is the right to life

A subsidiary right to the right to life, is the right to DEFEND that life

Depriving someone of one or more of his rights is a punishment

From Brown v US on what a Bil of Attainder is

(a) The Bill of Attainder Clause, Art. I, § 9, cl. 3, was intended to implement the separation of powers among the three branches of the Government by guarding against the legislative exercise of judicial power. Pp. 381 U. S. 441-446.

(b) The Bill of Attainder Clause is to be liberally construed in the light of its purpose to prevent legislative punishment of designated persons or groups. @ 71 U. S. 447-449.

From the New Hampshire Constitution on when rights can be deprived

[Art.] 15. [Right of Accused.] No subject shall be held to answer for any crime, or offense, until the same is fully and plainly, substantially and formally, described to him; or be compelled to accuse or furnish evidence against himself. Every subject shall have a right to produce all proofs that may be favorable to himself; to meet the witnesses against him face to face, and to be fully heard in his defense, by himself, and counsel. No subject shall be arrested, imprisoned, despoiled, or deprived of his property, immunities, or privileges, put out of the protection of the law, exiled or deprived of his life, liberty, or estate, but by the judgment of his peers, or the law of the land; provided that, in any proceeding to commit a person acquitted of a criminal charge by reason of insanity, due process shall require that clear and convincing evidence that the person is potentially dangerous to himself or to others and that the person suffers from a mental disorder must be established. Every person held to answer in any crime or offense punishable by deprivation of liberty shall have the right to counsel at the expense of the state if need is shown; this right he is at liberty to waive, but only after the matter has been thoroughly explained by the court.

The Bill of attainder prohibition prohibits punishment except through a court of law. Poof! Any law passed depriving a person of his rights is illegal! That includes all laws depriving a person of the means to defend his life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.15.141 (talk) 23:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

First, the case was U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437 (1965), and the "@ 71" should be "381" (both quotes were from Brown). Bills of Attainder are acts of legislatures that pronounce a person guilty (usually of treason) without a trial, and sentence that person to death and confiscate all of his property. A law which deprives a person of a right is unconstitutional, unless it was done by due process of law such as convicting one of a felony. Nice try though. (Truwik (talk) 20:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC))

You may be getting confused between the old definition of a bill of attainder and the newer (200 years old now) which includes a ruling that "bills of pains and penalties" are also bills of attainder under US law. Bills of attainder are legislative acts that "punish" without recourse to a trial by the Judicial Branch. They are not limited to acts against a single person and includes acts against groups of people. The whole US population, for instance is a group, so are all blacks, all whites, all Asians, all people earning below or above a certain amount, all people under 5 feet tall, all people over 65, all people under 18, etc etc etc. The key concept is punishment through an act of the legislature, without recourse to a trial. While the legislature can certainly pass laws, that upon a determination of guilt in a court of law, can result in punishment, it is the job of the Judicial Branch to determine that guilt and the actual punishment for that guilt. Any punishment by the legislature constitutes a breach of separation of powers. Deprivation of a right, including the right to keep and bear arms, by an act of legislature, is in fact a punishment. The death penalty is a derivation of the right to life, incarceration is a deprivation the right to be free, and fines are a deprivation of the right to property.

From Brown

http://supreme.justia.com/us/381/437/case.html

(a) The Bill of Attainder Clause, Art. I, § 9, cl. 3, was intended to implement the separation of powers among the three branches of the Government by guarding against the legislative exercise of judicial power. Pp. 381 U. S. 441-446.

(b) The Bill of Attainder Clause is to be liberally construed in the light of its purpose to prevent legislative punishment of designated persons or groups. @ 71 U. S. 447-449.

(f) A statute which inflicts its deprivation upon named or described persons or groups constitutes a bill of attainder whether its aim is retributive, punishing past acts, or preventive, discouraging future conduct. In America Communications Ass'n v. Douds, 339 U. S. 382, where the Court upheld § 9(h) of the National Labor Relations Act, the predecessor of § 504, the Court erroneously assumed that only a law visiting retribution for past acts could constitute a bill of attainder, and misread the statute involved in United States v. Lovett, 328 U. S. 303, which it sought to distinguish from § 9(h), as being in that category.

It is in this spirit that the Bill of Attainder Clause was consistently interpreted by this Court -- until the decision in American Communications Ass'n v. Douds, 339 U. S. 382, which we shall consider hereafter. In 1810, Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for the Court in 10 U. S. 138, stated that "[a] bill of attainder may affect the life of an individual, or may confiscate his property, or may do both." This means, of course, that what were known at common law as bills of pains and penalties are outlawed by the Bill of Attainder Clause. The Court's pronouncement therefore served notice that the Bill of Attainder Clause was not to be given a narrow historical reading (which would exclude bills of pains and penalties), but was instead to be read in light of the evil the Framers had sought to bar: legislative punishment, of any form or severity, of specifically designated persons or groups.68.160.162.23 (talk) 14:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Now from CUMMINGS V. MISSOURI, 71 U. S. 277 (1867)

First and foremost, deprivation of a right is "punishment"

2. Deprivation or suspension of any civil rights for past conduct is punishment for such conduct.

3. A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without a judicial trial. If the punishment be less than death, the act is termed a bill of pains and penalties. Within the meaning of the Constitution, bills of attainder include bills of pains and penalties.

4. These bills, though generally directed against individuals by name, may be directed against a whole class, and they may inflict punishment absolutely or may inflict it conditionally.68.160.162.23 (talk) 16:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

If Heller had held the D.C. handgun ban ordinance to be a bill of attainder, rather than a violation of the 2A, it would still have been unconstitutional, which I think is more appropriate, and would be better understood. (Truwik (talk) 17:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC))

Courts in general stay FAR AWAY from Bills of Attainder questions. Any rigid application of that principle would probably invalidate half the US Code of Law. All laws that take away or infringe on rights without judicial trial do in fact punish, and would be declared invalid. Not only would every gun control law be invalidated, so would seizure of property during drug busts, the seizure of plastic knives at an airport (also forbidden by the 14th), , no never ending incarcerations in Quntanamo, no administrative separation of a child from their parents, no abandoned property seizure, no removal of the right to vote from felons, etc etc etc.141.154.76.26 (talk) 13:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with what you are saying, but if one believes a federal law, that has infringed, is a bill of attainder, then he must file a lawsuit which alleges that, in a federal District Court, which would give him due process, but he must prove he was harmed by that law, or the court would dismiss on its own motion. If one has been arrested for violating a federal firearms law, then he could argue such law was a bill of attainder and/or a violation of the Second Amendment, either of which would be unconstitutional. If the firearm was acquired legally before the federal law that attainted it was enacted, he could argue ex post facto, also. (Truwik (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC))

I think one component of the defense in Presser was based on the "Bill of Attainder" prohibition. The court tossed it out with extreme prejudice. 141.154.15.7 (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposing new lede

There is a fair amount of dissatisfaction with the current lede and I am proposing that it be replaced with the following

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects a right to keep and bear arms from infringement by Congress

This to be cited by a reference to the following quote from Cruikshank

The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.

Next it should be followed up by the following to indicate the extent of the right - per Sayoko Blodgett-Ford the following quote was made in the Pennsylvania ratifying convention - see current cite 31

The people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed..."

Next from the majority opinion on Heller

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

Next from the Stevens dissent on Heller showing tat even the dissenters consider it an individual right

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

Next from the majority opinion on what the Supreme Court thinks about the "collective rights" view that the right can only be exercised within a militia

If “bear arms” means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage (“for the purpose of self-defense” or “to make war against the King”). But if “bear arms” means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add “for the purpose of killing game.” The right “to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game” is worthy of the mad hatter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.98.56 (talk) 13:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

This looks like improper synthesis where you are attempting to interpret selective quotations from primary court documents in order to advance your personal point of view. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Court documents are secondary sources when the subject is the Second Amendment.68.163.98.56 (talk) 15:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, your selective quotations from them appears as improper synthesis in attempt to advocate your personal point of view. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

What am I synthesizing?68.163.98.56 (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You tell me. Your hypothesis seems kind of muddy, but it appears that you are trying to rewrite the lede to be sympathetic with the gun rights advocacy slogan: "What part of 'shall not be infringed' don't you understand?". SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You complained I was synthesizing, so what do you think I'm synthesizing? or don't YOU know what YOUR complaint was about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.98.56 (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, it appears that you are using original research through synthesis of selective quotations from court documents trying to rewrite the lede to be sympathetic with the gun rights advocacy slogan: "What part of 'shall not be infringed' don't you understand?". Also an apparent violation of WP:NPOV. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Quoting court cases is not original research, and the fact that you don't like what the judges say doesn't make it synthesis. 68.163.98.56 (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Understanding the meaning of what they say takes expertise, which normal people don't have. For instance, with Heller, it appeared to laymen reading the ruling that gun ban laws would be found unconstitutional. Yet, in the eight months since and with eighty court cases heard, all, or nearly all gun bans remain constitutional. See [this newspaper article http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/17/us/17bar.html]. That is why it is risky to base the article on your selective quotations from primary court documents, proof in the time tested, they don't actually mean what they literally say. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that you are normal and can't quite grasp what the courts are saying. Never fear however, I do understand and I guess that makes me exceptional :-) and how do you know I haven't been working in, say contract law, for the past decade? The only reasons those bans are still in place is that it can take a decade to get a case heard. I think they are working on the Exxon Valdez lawsuit. 68.163.98.56 (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

"the only reason those bans are still in place..."??? That sounds like a wishful rationalization without any basis other that your intense imagination. Did you read the article[2]? About eighty federal court cases challenging gun bans on Second Amendment grounds have been heard in the eight months since Heller and in every case the ban was upheld as being constitutional under the Second Amendment. How does "shall not infringe" comport with eighty court cases validating constitutional gun ban rulings? Clearly there is more going on here than the dictionary definition, or the gun rights slogan. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Tell you what,list those 80 cases and I MIGHT believe you. 141.154.11.202 (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

the only person suggesting dissatisfaction with the current lede is the person proposing changing it. that's a misrepresentation of consensus. i'm not in love with the current lede, but considering the prickly-spiny nature of this particular amendment and the strong feelings that swirl around it, the existing lede appears to be a reasonable - if imperfect - compromise. ideally the lede should be a summary of the entire article, but that has proven impractical due to intensive POV pushing by both 'sides' of the debate. the existing terse lede gives a 30,000ft view that is accurate within that constraint. it's also been essentially unchallenged for several months, no small feat in and of itself. so, to summarize:

Do not support. Anastrophe (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Truwic has also expressed dissatisfaction over the fact that the word "infringed" is not the lede, and stated that the lack constitutes "censorship". Your opinion that is has not been "unchallenged" is just that, your opinion. The facts show otherwise. I can agree that it has not been "strongly challenged" in that past, but as of now, even that is not true.68.163.98.56 (talk) 15:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

"Infringed" in context of the Second Amendment is a very subtle word easily misinterpreted and manipulated for political reasons. The dictionary definition means one thing where the use in context of the reasonable regulation status quo of the Second Amendment appears quite different. It appears that you are advocating for the fringe gun advocacy position "what part of 'shall not be infringed' don't you understand?", and that is inappropriate in this encyclopedia article. See the recent book by Brian Doherty ISBN 9781933995250 page xvi who touches on this concept[3]. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree! But I wouldn't add Justice Stevens' dissent. (Truwik (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC))

Infringed is a word whose meaning you can look up in any dictionary.

in·fringe (n-frnj) v. in·fringed, in·fring·ing, in·fring·es

1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent. 2. Obsolete To defeat; invalidate.

To encroach on someone or something; engage in trespassing: an increased workload that infringed on his personal life.

infringe

to break (a law etc) or interfere with (a person's freedom or rights). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.98.56 (talk) 16:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Truwik votes for Change! (Just not Obama type change) but votes against adding in the quote from the dissenting opinion

The following now has two votes for and two against (Hopefully I won't get egg on my face by assuming that "I agree" means I agree to change the lede)

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects a right to keep and bear arms from infringement by Congress

This to be cited by a reference to the following quote from Cruikshank

The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.

Next it should be followed up by the following to indicate the extent of the right - per Sayoko Blodgett-Ford the following quote was made in the Pennsylvania ratifying convention - see current cite 31

The people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed..."

Next from the majority opinion on Heller

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

Next from the majority opinion on what the Supreme Court thinks about the "collective rights" view that the right can only be exercised within a militia

If “bear arms” means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage (“for the purpose of self-defense” or “to make war against the King”). But if “bear arms” means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add “for the purpose of killing game.” The right “to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game” is worthy of the mad hatter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.98.56 (talk) 22:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I accept. In the Cruikshank quote, between 'counts' and 'are', I would add "[in the indictment]" (just to clarify the source of the counts). Noah Webster (1758-1843) was 33 years old when the 2A was added to the U.S. Constitution. He defined 'infringement' as: "an encroachment or trespass on a right or privilege." (Truwik (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC))

No additional votes have been submitted to break the tie, and while I believe we should wait a bit longer for votes, it is not too early to seek a compromise on the change.

Since there are 4 sections proposed to be in the new lede, with two vote for and two vote against, one way to make sure all parties are equally dissatisfied (a sure indicator of a good compromise)is to have those who voted against select the two most distasteful of the 4 proposed changes which will not be included in the lede, leaving the two most noncontroversial changes as the new lede.

Now asking Truwik, Anastrophe, and SaltyBoatr to vote either for or against this method of reaching a mutually disatisfactory compromise. If for, Anastrophe, and SaltyBoatr should indicate which of the 4 proposed section is most distasteful, and to further indicate if they are for inclusion, anti inclusion or neutral on inclusion, for the other two sections.141.154.11.202 (talk) 15:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

false construct. consensus is not found via a vote. this ia wikipedia policy. i have stated that i am against any changes to the existing lede - a lede that was also formulated through consensus - therefore your suggested changes are against consensus to begin with. i'm not under any obligation to 'vote' for or against your proposal. i am wholey against any proposed changes, as they appear to be obvious POV pushes. the lede is supposed to be a summary of the major points of the article. since this article's subject is highly contentious, the existing compromise wording, which is extremely minimal, helps prevent POV pushes by being a '30,000 ft view'. it is entirely adequate as is. Anastrophe (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

furthermore, you need to slow down. for one thing, there are many editors here on wikipedia. i'm quite sure in fact that there are more than four editors who work on wikipedia. just because others have not weighed in on this yet, does not mean that they are not owed a voice in it. if you review this discussion page, you'll see many more names than just the four you've selected. give them an opportunity to discuss the matter. that's what this page is for. Anastrophe (talk) 15:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

If consensus in not made through vote then how is it made? Inquiring minds REALLY want to know this one.141.154.11.202 (talk) 15:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

click the handy "help" link in the sidebar. Anastrophe (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

If consensus requires that all parties agree tosomething, then I have some new for you, NOTHING in the current article has been agreed to by all parties. Due to lack of consensus, the whole article should therefor be deleted.16:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.11.202 (talk)

The existing lede was painstakingly negotiated and crafted necessarily vague to meet a POV balance point required in this contentious article. I see no need to revise it, much less to revise it by shifting the neutrality balance point. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry! don't remember any painfuil negotiations. Post a link for proof.141.154.11.202 (talk) 16:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

perhaps thats because there are some editors who have been here more than the last fifteen minutes? i'm being sarcastic, of course. you're welcome to visit the discussion archives via the helpful links to them above. Anastrophe (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Been here for almost a year now. Try to keep up with the times.141.154.11.202 (talk) 16:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

if only there were some more permanent identifier for "you" than a dotted quad notation string that changes on an irregular basis, it would be possible for everyone other than you to know who you are and how long you've been here. more's the pity. Anastrophe (talk) 02:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Was never a joiner, and I make it a point not to join organizations that thinks the concept of "stealing is Bad" is subject to debate. From wiki POV

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV

By value or opinion,[2] on the other hand, we mean "a matter which is subject to dispute." There are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions. That stealing is wrong is a value or opinion. 14:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.162.23 (talk)

Newcomer comment Since I was asked for input on this stalemate, I will give. I don't think "infringement by congress" is an appropriate lede at all. The bill of rights as a whole protects the people from the actions of all parts of government, not just the legislative branch. Police are not part of the legislative branch, and the 2nd protects from infringement by them as well. I would only propose one minor change to the lede:

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right to keep and bear arms. The meaning and scope of this right has been described as among the most contested of the rights codified in the Bill of Rights.

That is, simply change "a right" to "the right", as it is actually referred to in the amendment itself. "A right" seems unnecessarily vague. We concede in the next sentence that what exactly the right refers to is contested, so we don't need to also be vague in the first sentence. I hope this input helps break the stalemate. Gigs (talk) 16:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

proposed change

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects a right to keep and bear arms from infringement by Congress now revised 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 to keep and bear arms from infringement by all parts of the US government.

I'm in favor with the change per input from Gigs. Now asking other editors for input (notice I didn't use the word vote)68.160.162.23 (talk) 14:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I would change "all parts of the US government" to "the federal government." (That would preclude readers from misconstruing 'U.S. government' to mean state governments as well. (Truwik (talk) 20:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC))

Further revised 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 to keep and bear arms from infringement by the federal government.68.160.162.23 (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

But it does protect against state and local government infringement. All of the bill of rights do (well, other than the 10th). If your local police violate the 4th amendment, it protects you by invalidating that evidence. If a local judge orders you to violate the 5th amendment under protest, that testimony can be thrown out on appeal. And if a state or local government violates the 2nd amendment, that can be challenged in court, as in Heller. The constitution is the supreme law of the land and it applies to all parts of the government. The "all parts of the US government" is the most accurate, but I would still not put that into the lede. It is assumed that the bill of rights exists to protect these rights from infringement by the government, that is their entire reason for being. Gigs (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

According to the courts it does not. Only the "privileges or immunities" inherent in being a US citizens are protected against state infringement. Those "privileges or immunities" have been expanded to most of the Bill of Rights, by way of the 14th Amendment, through a legal theory called "incorporation". The right to keep and bear arms has not yet been incorporated. The NRA is working on it through some of their post Heller suits. My own personal opinion that since the states insisted on adding the right to keep and bear arms as a protected right, within the Bill of Rights, they implicitly acknowledge that right. 68.160.162.23 (talk) 20:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I did not know that. From catching up on reading, it does seem that incorporation could still happen; it seems a little presumptuous to claim applicability of the amendment in the lede, since it's a pretty subtle question that is more fully explained in the later section about case law. Gigs (talk) 07:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

While it may be presumptuous to indicate that the Second Amendment applies to states, the new proposed lede states only that it applies against the feds. A number of court cases clearly support that and it is accepted legal fact.68.160.162.23 (talk) 14:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It's fairly obvious SaltyBoatr places no importance at all on Supreme Court decisions that declare what the law means. Every High Court decision, that addressed the meaning of the 2A, has agreed that "shall not be infringed" applies exclusively to the federal government, but to some editors that amounts to Original Research. Leaving that fact out of the intro, to me, would almost amount to treason. (Truwik (talk) 21:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC))

(Indent) I think it's a far too subtle and unsettled point to include in the lede. The article should definitely talk about the applicability and the current cases by the NRA that seek to cause a ruling of incorporation... Just not in the lede, IMO. Why not write a preface to the historical cases section that gives them some context? I'll give that a go. Gigs (talk) 01:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Cases? I think that only one case has been appealed, and cert has not been yet granted. Therefore, at best, we can say that the NRA hopes to achieve... And WP:FUTURE limits what can be speculated, so I doubt much can be said here now.

If by cert you mean certiatori, the appeals court does get to choose what it hears. That is only the Supreme Court. Once the appeal is heard and decided, then the loser can try to get the Supreme Court interested.68.160.162.23 (talk) 16:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

If by 'certiatori' you mean certiorari, it doesn't matter. Whether the 2A is incorporated, or not, will have no affect on the unassailable fact that it applies to the federal government now. It has always applied to the federal government, and even if the 2A is altered to read "shall be infringed unmercifully" it would still apply to the federal government. This Article is supposed to provide a comprehensive up-to-date resource for the legal field. Thus, lest we lead the entire legal establishment astray, the intro must declare to whom "shall not" applies. (Truwik (talk) 17:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC))

Spelling of legal terms obviously isn't my specialty. I'm more into history.68.160.162.23 (talk) 19:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It is an historical, legal fact that the U.S. Supreme Court has never held any state law in violation of the Second Amendment. It only applies to the federal government. (Truwik (talk) 19:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC))

"regulated"

Not one sentence in this article clarifies that "regulated" here means "trained", an archaic use of the word that is confusing to many. I'd rather not jump into this fray, but I suggest that this information be worked into the article. Gigs (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

See section 2.5 Well regulated militia which contains Alexander Hamilton's opinion of what constitutes a well regulated militia.

BTW: we are currently in a dispute over replacing the currently intro to the article, with a larger more comprehensive intro bu are currently at a stalemate. See section 19 Proposing new lede. Your input would be welcome to break that stalemate.68.160.162.23 (talk) 16:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

What if we prefaced it with a note? I'll be bold and do so. Gigs (talk) 16:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The change looks good to me. 68.160.162.23 (talk) 16:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I reject the suggestion that this be worked into the article. This 2A Article isn't about how militias are regulated. It's about arms not being infringed by Congress, whether such arms are suitable for military use or not. (Truwik (talk) 19:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC))

Please read the section in question. it is there to show that at the time of the Constitution was written, the usage of the term "well regulated" meant "well trained". The meaning of words changes over the ages, and to understand what the authors of the Constitution meant when they wrote the Second Amendment, we need to understand how they used that phrase.68.160.162.23 (talk) 19:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to a brief mentiion of 'militia', that is the primary reason the 2A restriction was added. However, whether the militia is well-regulated, trained, well-equipped or not doesn't affect the amendment's purpose. Congress has never, knowingly, infringed on militia-type weapons, however the various state militias were organized. (Truwik (talk) 17:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC))

Congress has knowingly infringed on a ton of militia type weapons. For instance,the machine gun ban, clip size regulations, regulations against automatic weapons, regulations prohibiting conversion of semiauto to full auto, even the ban on sawed off shotguns. The military used short barrel shotguns to clear up holdouts in tunnels during the Grenada invasion. The shorter barrel gives a faster reaction time. Of importance when your life depends on how fact you can train your weapon on the enemy I heard that from someone who went into those tunnels. Sawed off shotguns, while certainly easier to hide then the standard shotgun, are quite a bit harder to hide then a pistol.68.160.162.23 (talk) 18:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

That's interesting. The machinegun ban I had in mind, was the tommy-gun (seen in old movies). And you're right about sawed-off shotguns, I've read where they were general issue in WWI. (U.S. v. Miller was about one - I just added some data there.) (Truwik (talk) 20:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC))

My original point was that the wording of the prefatory clause isn't material to the amendment's purpose. It could have read: "Because a rag-tag bunch of illiterate ner-do-wells are occassionally summoned for Militia duty, the right...[etc.]," and the operative clause (shall not be infringed) would still have the same meaning. (Truwik (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC))

The Supreme Court said the same thing.

The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose.68.160.162.23 (talk) 18:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

So why all the fuss over what "regulated" means? Assuming all editors would agree on a definition of "well regulated", how could that possibly affect this 2A Article? (Truwik (talk) 20:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC))

Not all editors agree. "Well Regulated" as in "well trained" means one thing, while "Well regulated" as in operating under a ton of rules and regulations means something quite a bit different. The second meaning can be used to support additional rules and regulations, the first can't.141.154.76.26 (talk) 21:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

We don't seem to be understanding each other. I agree that how a militia is regulated affects its efficiency, but whether efficient or not, the federal government is still prohibited from infringing on their weapons. Militias are organized and equipped by state laws, I fail to see how a state-mismanaged militia would affect the Second Amendment. Maybe if you would explain that, I would understand. (Truwik (talk) 20:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC))

The feds are the SOLE source of militia weapons. See body of the Constitution which states that one of the powers of Congress is "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia,". At that point the states were barred from arming their own militia and the only source of "official" militia arms was Congress. The Second Amendment was designed to protect the individuals right to "private" arms in case Congress refused to arm the militia. Those "private" arms could then be used when serving in the militia.141.154.15.7 (talk) 20:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Chicago suburb bans, Evanston

Whatever peoples opinion on why the Chicago suburbs folded and didn't go to court to fight for the gun bans, at least one suburb voided the gun ban because it recognized that the law was against it and not because of funding issues. Certainly paying to fight the NRA lawsuit was an issue, but no "the issue".

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-09-10-gunsbans_N.htm

Evanston ended its ban last month, but the NRA's lawsuit still is pending, says Alderman Steve Bernstein. A law firm offered to defend the city at no cost, and Bernstein says talks about reinstating the ban are underway.

Spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend the ban wasn't an option in Evanston, Bernstein says. "It's a question of priorities," he says. "If you thought you could win the case, that would be different."

an also

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=4140

"Quite honestly, we cannot afford to fight for principle at this point when the law is against us," said Alderman Steven J. Bernstein, Fourth Ward. 68.160.162.23 (talk) 15:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The one NRA lawsuit of these five that was actually fought and ruled on in a court was lost in December. That trumps the speculation made in June, which in hindsight proved wrong. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Heller lost at the lower court level. Does that mean Heller lost? Neither the appeals court nor the Supreme Court thought so.68.160.162.23 (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The Illinois Constitution (Art. I, Sec. 22) reads: "Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The Illinois State legislative policy was to let cities and suburbs regulate the right as they saw fit. Morton Grove had prohibited handgun possession in their area - much the same as the D.C. ordinance. After the Heller decision, they knew they would be under assault, again, so they folded rather that undergo the expense of another trial. (Truwik (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC))

Any comments? Does "individual citizen" mean the National Guard, there, does not have the right? To whom does "shall not be infringed", there, apply? (Truwik (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 13:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC).

As far as I know, the police power has to do with preventing harm to others. If the state can't prove, in a court of law, that you a a danger to others, then your rights to arms should not be infringed. Also, last I checked a gun is property.

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law nor be denied the equal protection of the laws.

141.154.76.26 (talk) 23:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Police Power in a state includes regulation of firearms - all states do it (see Presser v. Illinois). In Illinois, the state didn't infringe, they let fellow-citizens infringe on other citizens - like in Morton Grove. They were allowing some citizens to violate the right of others - like in D.C. They knew that was wrong, so they folded. (Rights are inalienable - it had nothing to do with the Second or the Fourteenth Amendments.) (Truwik (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC))

Chicago bans upheld based on "Presser v Illinois"; Heller not considered

Did some reading on the ruling upholding the gun bans and it used "Presser v Illinois" as precedent and not Heller. The excuse being that this was not a Second Amendment case, as the gun bans were not instituted by the feds.

It will be interesting to see if the following quote from Presser is brought up on the appeals

It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.162.23 (talk) 16:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Victor Quilici initially challenged Ordinance No. 81-11 in state court. Morton Grove removed the action to federal court (Quilici v. village of Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261 (7th Cir. Ct. of Appeals, 1982)). The 7th Cir. Ct. of Appeals said: "We next consider whether Ord. No. 81-11 violates the second amendment of the U.S. Constitution...appellants [who relied on Presser] all contend that Ord. No. 81-11 is invalid under the second amendment... The appellants "theory of implicit incorporation is wholly unsupported. The Supreme Court has specifically rejected the proposition that the entire Bill of Rights applies to the states through the fourteenth amendment...we hold that the second amendment does not apply to the states... Because the second amendment is not applicable to Morton Grove..., Ord. No. 81-11 does not violate the second amendment." (Truwik (talk) 14:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC))

The Ill. Const. (Art. I, Sec. 22) reads: "Subject to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The Sec. Amend. reads: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." If the Second Amendment applied to Illinois, it would be Double Jeopardy, a violation of Amendment V. (Truwik (talk) 21:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC))

Well regulated redux

Has any major collective rights person actually advanced that the meaning of well-regulated was intended to be the modern sense, and not "well functioning"? I mean, other than out of ignorance? It's not an argument I've ever seen. It's not really a point of debate any longer since Heller was very clear on this, but was there even any serious disagreement about this before Heller? Gigs (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, several scholars discuss the ambiguity of the meaning of "regulated". Either 'well trained' and/or 'government controlled'. See Cornell's book[4] pages 79 and 80 where he makes reference to the ongoing political debate over the definition, and the influential papers by David Williams and Sanford Levinson. You sort of imply that the 'Well regulated militia'[5] section in this article is a mess and I agree. In my opinion, what is notable in the reliable sourcing, and missing in this article, is the relevance of the meaning of "well regulated militia" as justification for the modern militia movement hypothesis of rogue citizens militias. See for instance the book by Robert Snow[6]. Instead what we have in the article is tit for tat WP:SYN POV pushing. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Your own book says that well-regulated means exactly one thing: Well disciplined. Nothing else. "One of the modern militia leaders who testified before Congress said ... that the militia movement is informal, spontaneous, and without fixed leadership. No eighteenth-century defender of the militias would have spoken that way. Sensitive to the charge that militias could be mobs, they always stressed that they were talking of a proper militia, a good militia, a correct militia, one well-trained, well-disciplined, well-regulated." See page 76, the section titled "Well Regulated". So again, I contend that no one has ever seriously put forth any other intended meaning of those words. It's not even part of the debate. Gigs (talk) 22:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I have incorporated Cornell's position that rogue modern militias are probably not what the founding fathers had in mind, and removed the other dubious synthesis that had been added. Gigs (talk)

section break

All due respect but the meaning of 'well-regulated' is irrelevant to the ongoing debate in this Article. The debate is whether the 2A's restriction against infringing applies only to militia-type weapons or to all sorts of weapons. Whether the actual Militias are well-regulated, poorly-regulated or un-regulated, has no effect on the purpose for the 2A. (Truwik (talk) 21:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC))

I've been REALLY tempted to put the question about the Hamilton quote below into the article

Hamilton: If a well regulated militia be the most natural defence of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security.

Qeustion: As the gun control advocates interpret the term "well regulated" to mean already regulated and under the control of government, why does the militia need to be brought under the control of government, when according to their interpretation, IT IS ALREADY under the control of government? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.76.26 (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

"Well-regulated" is simply the adjective-modifier of Militia. However well-regulated a state militia may be, it was still organized and controlled by, then, each State. Hamilton advocated that these state militias should be under the control of the national government, because 'it' is the guardian of the national security. That wasn't adopted by the Founders because the Constitution (Art. I, Sec. 8) provided for "calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union" when necessary. These state-militias are now the National Guard - so Hamilton, eventually, got his way - they are stationed throughout the States, but are under federal control. The expression 'collective-right' now refers to any government-controlled armed group, such as city police, highway patrolmen and the Natiional Guard. Thus, those who advocate the collective-right point of view are - knowingly or not - encouraging the disarming of all individuals not associated with these controlled groups. (Truwik (talk) 14:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC))

Regarding your comment that a militia is organized and controlled by the States is untrue prior to the Revolutionary War. At that time militia organizations were local affairs and many militia leaders were elected by those that they would lead. In effect the Constitution hijacked the leadership of the militia , the feds later refused to fund a universal militia, which not being funded was ineffective, then the various militias being ineffective were disbanded, private militias were outlawed (see Presser), so that the individual could not call on his armed and organized peers for support from tyranical actions by government, and now even the individual is in many cases forbidden the ownership of weapons to protect himself from criminals and tyrants holding government positions. As the individuals ability to protect his rights is weakened the government ability to infringe on those rights increases. Ever seen a tar and feathering? I haven't, and I know any number of people in government that deserve it. 141.154.76.26 (talk) 15:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I assumed that would be taken for granted. I said "controlled by...each State." Prior to the Revolutionary War there were no States - they were colonies. Not sure what you meant by "the Const. hijacked the leadership of the militia"? The evolution of the militia is interesting but (if you don't mind) I would appeciate knowing what the 2A means to you - if possible, in one sentence - thank you. (Truwik (talk) 19:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC))

By hijacking the leadership I mean exactly that. Pre-Revolutionay War, many if not all militias were organized and led at the local (town, village, city,) level. Leaders were elected by those they would lead, and not imposed on them by the colonial government. After the Constitution was passed no locally controlled militia was allowed and elected leaders were also not allowed. I believe the Second Amendment bars the feds from passing any law that infringes, in the smallest degree, on a persons ability to own, carry, store, or use, ANY weapon.

From the wiki Minuteman article: They recommended to the militia to form themselves into companies of minute-men, who should be equipped and prepared to march at the shortest notice. These minute-men were to consist of one quarter of the whole militia, to be enlisted under the direction of the field-officers, and divide into companies, consisting of at least fifty men each. The privates were to choose their captains and subalterns, and these officers were to form the companies into battalions, and chose the field-officers to command the same.141.154.76.26 (talk) 20:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

As to Militia control, read Houston v. Moore, 18 U.S. 1 (1820), and I think you will change your mind. The only time feds had control of Militias was when they were called up to exercise the laws of the Union - with the president as their Commander-in-chief. The rest of time Militias were in their respective states, under state control. Houston v. Moore is about who controls Militias, and when. As to your 2A belief...At Last! Someone agrees with me! (Truwik (talk) 20:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC))

Salty Boatr - please revert your deletion of "balancing" Supreme Court commentary

or I will have to report you for a 3RR violation141.154.15.7 (talk) 16:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess you are talking about your insertion "Prior to DC v Heller many were unclear on what the Second Amendment protected, ...". That editorial commentary is not very encyclopedic, sorry. I do appreciate and respect that you sincerely hold this as your personal point of view. And my editing of your commentary in the article is in no way intended as a disrespect to you personally. Again, I apologize if you feel disrespect, none is intended. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I have now filed a 3RR violation on you and further reported the deletion of the two warnings I made on your talk talk page, as evidence of your bad faith. Happy Easter! May you find rebirth on this day and become a better human being.141.154.15.7 (talk) 01:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

editors are free to clear detritus from their own talk pages. formal warnings (by admin) may not be removed while in effect, but other than that, the editor is welcome to remove whatever they like.

your tone is highly personalized and aggressive, i'd suggest you tone it down. making commentary about what the editor may or may not feel about easter is inappropriate. what if he's buddhist? jewish? jain? projecting your belief system in the manner you have is pretty ugly, imo. Anastrophe (talk) 03:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Would it be more politically correct of me to wish him reborn as a worse human being? and have you read the First Amendment lately. Projecting your belief system in the manner you have and attacking my right to practice my religion is pretty ugly, imo.141.154.15.7 (talk) 04:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

this is the talk page for the second amendment to the constitution. you could try confining your commentary here to that subject, which is expressly what this page is for. it is expressly not, by policy, a place for you to spout whatever you feel like spouting. see WP:FORUM for starters. Anastrophe (talk) 04:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Civilian usage unbalanced

Unless we remove the Cramer material from the military usage section, we are obligated to point out that Kates and this nobody who authored an essay in a minor law journal are not serious scholars whose work has been widely accepted outside of the gun rights community. Wills, Rakove, and Cornell have all authored major critiques of this non-militia usage thesis. One can certainly point out that this scholarly view was rejected by Heller, but to be balanced we need to include the critiques here. Hope someone can help out with the wiki format for notes. Philo-Centinel (talk) 12:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

kates is most certainly a serious scholar. 'nobody's typically don't teach at stanford and oxford. Anastrophe (talk) 15:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It may interest you top know that Merkel, who is used as a reference several times in the article, was at the time he wrote some of that material either a "Tutor" or a "Research Assistant". In your words a "nobody"! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.15.7 (talk) 13:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess you are criticizing the 2002 book published by Duke University Press? That is a well respected publishing house which solidly meets reliable source standards here at Wikipedia. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't change the fact that at the time Merkel was a "nobody".141.154.15.7 (talk) 14:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the recently passage[7] which begins: "In DC v Heller the Supreme Court seems to have had little difficulty in determining..." Really? How do we know that there was 'little difficulty'? Followed by three snippets excerpted directly from the court ruling. It appears that the selection of the snippets was made editorially to push a personal point of view, and this amounts to improper synthesis original research and WP:NPOV violations. What in the quoted passages says "seems to have had little difficulty" or "The majority opinion found arguments in favor of the collective rights view so unconvincing that... "? Really? Who here can read minds in order to know "view so unconvincing"? When we say that "the court determined", or "the opinion found"; then directly readings of the primary document sourcing this violates WP:PSTS policy. Secondary sources should be found and used. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Supreme Court opinion on the Second Amendment is a secondary source.141.154.15.7 (talk) 14:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, If the Supreme Court states, which it did, that certain arguments are worthy of the mad hatter and not found this side of the looking glass, do you think that the Supreme Court favors those arguments or does it think that they are crazy? 141.154.15.7 (talk) 14:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I notice that you didn't answer any of my questions. Failing to answer questions is considered to be incivility which impairs the work that is supposed to be achieved on talk pages. Trying to answer your question:

It depends on whether those statements were ratio decidendii or orbiter dictum. Which were they? Even highly trained legal experts have difficulty telling the difference. Armchair legal analysis of primary court documents requires expertise, and when an editor draws conclusions, synthesis. If your ideas are mainstream, this is no big deal, because reliable secondary sourcing should be easy to find showing exactly the same conclusion. Redflags go up when your ideas are not also confirmed in reliable secondary sourcing. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

In response to your question "Realy?" Yes! Really! Both the majority opinion and the opposing dissent stated that the right defended was an individual right. All 9 Justices agreed. Unless you believe that someone was holding a gun to the head of a Supreme Court Justice, then all of them shared that opinion. Are you aware of anyone holding a gun to the head of a Supreme Court Justice to make him vote in a certain way? If so, please contact the FBI and report an "obstruction of justice".141.154.15.7 (talk) 15:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Merkel is a law professor with a JD from Columbia and PhD from Oxford. The fact that Scalia thinks that the John Paul Stevens is mad, only suggests that Nino's opinions are getting more pompous and shrill. His decision in Heller has been attacked from the left, the right, and the center. There are not many things that legal scholars Reva Siegel and J. Harvie Wilkinson would agree on-- but both fault Scalia in Heller. Indeed, it is hard to find anyone outside of the gun rights community who thinks that the decision is solid from a jurisprudential stand point. Even gun rights advocates such as Nelson Lund have attacked the logic of the decision. I myself agree with Cass Sunstein who sees it as a weak decision on the reasoning, but a solid decision as a matter of prudence and politics.Conlawgeek (talk) 15:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually per his resume Merkel was either a "Tutor" a "Research Assistant", or even unemployed prior to August 2003 when he was hired as an "Associate" by Columbia [8]. Some of his quoted material, was written prior to August 2003. Per your own words, at the time he was a "nobody".141.154.15.7 (talk) 15:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

If you think that a post-doc at Columbia law school means you are a nobody I am not sure if you have had any academic experience at top ten law schools. Do you have any post-graduate education?Conlawgeek (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

please avoid personalizing commentary. your question is inappropriate. who an editor is, what their background is, etc, is not open to debate. that's wikipedia policy.

i would be curious how you rationalize the suggestion that kates - who has taught at stanford and oxford - is a "nobody", but a law student is not a nobody. Anastrophe (talk) 15:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

To repeat, PER HIS RESUME, Merkel was either a "Tutor" a "Research Assistant", or even unemployed prior to August 2003 when he was hired as an "Associate" by Columbia [9]. Some of his quoted material, was written prior to August 2003. Per your own words, at the time he was a "nobody".141.154.15.7 (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Your point above contains misinformation in that Merkel did not get his PHD from Oxford until 2007. It is my understanding that you can't be a "post doc" until you become a "doc". For Merkel that happened in 2007 and not prior to August 2003141.154.15.7 (talk) 15:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

This conversation seems to be going nowhere. A question as to the appropriate POV article weighting to be given to Clayton Craymer has been diverted into an argument about the credentials of William Merkle?!?! Effectively sidetracking all constructive discussion of the POV balance question of the term "bear arms". SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The original issue was an attack on two authors, one of whom was called a "nobody" by Philo-Centinel. 141.154.15.7 (talk) 18:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Saltyboatr is certainly correct, but an Oxford PhD and Columbia JD and a tenured professorship certainly puts Merkel in a different league than Kates who has never been a tenured faculty member anywhere that I am aware of and whose work is riddled with errors, see Rakove, Highest State of Orginalism. Merkel may well have been a pre-doc, not post-doc but he is a serious scholar-- unlike Kates and Cramer who are gun rights activists. Moreover, Merkel did his work with Richard Uviller who had an endowed chair at Columbia law school at the time and their book was published by a top academic press-- Duke--something neither Kates nor Cramer can claim. Credentials do matter and that is the point of legal training to establish authority before citation!--so the question was relevant-- is this being edited by people who have the credentials or not--based on much that I have read I have my doubts!Conlawgeek (talk) 17:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from attacks on respected authors just because you don't agree with them. (he is a serious scholar-- unlike Kates and Cramer who are gun rights activists.)141.154.15.7 (talk) 18:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The status that Don Kates as a gun rights advocate is documented[10] in reliable secondary sourcing. The status of Clayton Craymer is similarly documented[11] in reliable secondary sourcing. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not disputing the opinions of those authors. I am disputing calling them "not serious scholars" because of their opinions, which BTW the US Supreme Court also agrees with.141.154.15.7 (talk) 18:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems perfectly reasonable to judge the seriousness of scholarship based on their affiliation and tenure status with reputable universities. What is your problem? SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

To Repeat: I am not disputing the opinions of those authors. I am disputing calling them "not serious scholars" because of their opinions, which BTW the US Supreme Court also agrees with141.154.15.7 (talk) 22:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

A careful examination of Merkel's CV shows that there is something less than a two year gap between leaving employment as a lawyer and starting to teach at Oxford which could easily be explained by taking classes, I don't believe the Oxford DPhil requires course work but I might be mistaken. In any event this gap hardly negates a Columbia JD, Oxford PhD, major book, several major articles, major fellowships--neither Kates nor Cramer can boast anything like this record. Moreover, his book was co-authored with one of the most eminent members of the Columbia Law School faculty.Philo-Centinel (talk) 22:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

A careful reading of Merkel's resume [12] shows that he did his dissertation for his Oxford PHD in 2007, well after the publishing of all the cited material attributed to him. His only teaching experience at Oxford was as a "Tutor" for some undefined periods in 2001-2003. Uviller, his mentor ans supposed co-author of much of their joint work, actually provided "modest editorial support" according to one paper. Uviller also passed away in 2005, if I am not mistaken, and could not have contributed to later work. Merkel worked with Uviller as a "Research Assistant" for a few month in 2001 and held the same position in 2003 working for a George Fletcher. He was not nearly as high and mighty as you make him seem. BTW: He participated in the Joyce Foundation "paid propagnada" issue of the Chicago Kent Law Review in 2000. That $5,000 Joyce payment for accepted articles to that issue probably looked REAL good to a grad student.141.154.15.7 (talk)

Merkel's Oxford Dissertation was on Jefferson and slavery, not the Second Amendment. The book was jointly authored, I am not sure what paper you are talking about. Joyce funded research is propaganda, but Don Kates, a professional hired gun for the gun industry, who is also a fellow at the right wing Independence Institute, is an objective source. I think we understand where you are coming from!Philo-Centinel (talk) 23:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

His dissertation was in 2007, well after the cited material in this article. The article in question is here [13] see note 1, which states "This review was written by Mr. Merkel with modest editorial assistance and the full accord of Professor Uviller.". I never added any material from Kates, I tend to stick with Court opinion and historical documents. Less chance of contamination from people with an agenda. 141.154.15.7 (talk) 23:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The article is a comment on Konig's Law and History review essay and was written after Uviller was diagnosed with cancer. In short this article has nothing to do with his earlier work co-authored with Uviller, it responds to Konig's new research on the Scottish roots of the Second Amendment. Citing court cases is fine for law, not very good for history, The notion that courts don't have agendas is kind of funny-- were you serious? Yeah, nobody would ever think Scalia had an agenda I also checked up on the author of the Seton Hall essay-- lawyer, not a scholar. Indeed, no evidence of being a serious scholar at all apart from two publications in third rate law reviews-- clearly did well in law school at Yale, but that only makes him an educated layperson, he hardly qualifies as an expert or good scholarly authority. Indeed, the use of the Pennsylvania Dissent pretty much marks him as doing law office history-- none of the serious historians who write about this issue would weight that text as anything other than a minority voicePhilo-Centinel (talk) 01:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

How do you know it had nothing to do with their earlier work? It is common for mentors to include their names on the work of their proteges to give them a leg up, and in return get a bit of credit, while providing minimal help in the research and writing. Oh yeah, Uviller seems to have been a lawyer as well and not a scholar. Does that mean he was less then a highly respected individual? You can Insert foot in mouth now.

You seem to have gotten a case of foot in mouth disease today, aren't you aware that Sayoko Blodgett-Ford is a woman? with a summa cum laude in Physics [14] to boot, now THAT is rare. It's likely that she has forgotten more then you will ever learn.

And those Scottish roots were what? The disarming of the Scottish militias after the Jacobite rebellions? How does disarmed Scottish militias lead to the Second Amendment?141.154.15.7 (talk) 03:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Do we REALLY need a citation for this?

The current legal meaning of the Second Amendment - to wit, that it protects an individual right, rather than a collective right - was decided in District of Columbia v. Heller[citation needed].

when right after we have

In DC v Heller the Supreme Court seems to have had little difficulty in determining that the Second Amendment protected an individual right, with the Scalia majority opinion stating that

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. [7]

and the Stevens minority stating

The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.[8]

This "citation needed" seem to be a level of nitpicking well above the norm for this article.141.154.15.7 (talk) 19:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have read a lot on this topic and don't see in reliable sourcing that Heller established a "rather than" status of individual versus collective rights. This is a very important detail. Please cite that this is a "rather than" condition, thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any sources promoting this idea that it can be both a collective and an individual right at the same time? That seems like potentially original research or synthesis to me. I've always seen it framed as a competing interpretation. Gigs (talk) 22:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Re-read WP:Burden. It is not I that has the burden of evidence here. SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

i've removed the contested claim, which indeed was incorrect.Anastrophe (talk) 05:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

(I would suggest that discussion topic titles should reflect what Article Section it pertains to - I had no idea, to where in the article this referred - then pose a question, or make a statement concerning the subject of interest. Here, "Do we really need...this" leaves editors scratching their heads. Thank you. A 15 minute search of the Article - for the statement complained of - failed to locate it.) (Truwik (talk) 18:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC))

My fault if the above was not clear but the question is now moot. The request for backing has since been deleted, as has the material to be backed - see here [15] and here [16]and here [17]141.154.15.7 (talk) 19:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed Scalia discussion of Scalia Diatribe from intro

Scalia's diatribe about bear arms does not belong in the intro. Moreover, Scalia uses the same contested Dissent of the PA Minority for the basis of his claim. Yet, scholars from Gary Wills to Saul Cornell have pointed out time and again that this text was thrown together in a slap dash manner and was never emulated. If we decide to include it then we need to include some of Stevens scathing critiques of Scalia's decision. The essay would be better without either.Conlawgeek (talk) 11:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Restored deleted Supreme Court opinion. Deleted material was part of the majority opinion and not just Scalia. Four other justices agreed and signed on to that opinion.141.154.15.7 (talk) 13:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Material does not belong here-- it distracts from the intro-- if you want to retain it I will move it to the bear arms discussion at lest it makes intellectual sense in that section. Conlawgeek (talk) 13:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Since you deleted it, you move it. I do not wish to be "entrapped" into a 3rr141.154.15.7 (talk) 14:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Conlawgeek is proposing a reasonable compromise. I agree and don't think that bulking up the 'Background' section with detail like this is the best way to handle it. Being high up in the article, the background section should be simplified. I do favor giving it detailed coverage down below in the Heller section. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The only Supreme Court opinion on the individual right v collective rights arguments belongs at the top of the article.141.154.15.7 (talk) 14:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Where do you read it was one "v" another? SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Calling one sides arguments as "worthy of the mad hatter" is pretty indicative

A purposive qualifying phrase that contradicts the word or phrase it modifies is unknown this side of the looking glass (except, apparently, in some courses on Linguistics). If “bear arms” means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage (“for the purpose of self-defense” or “to make war against the King”). But if “bear arms” means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add “for the purpose of killing game.” The right “to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game” is worthy of the mad hatter.141.154.15.7 (talk) 15:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I notice two things. 1) You refused to answer my question: "Where do you read it?". 2) There is an astonishing similarity of your seemingly original research and the NRA-ILA talking points[18]. If you don't answer me, I am tempted to guess what your sources are. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Did you notice the astonishing similarity between my post and US Supreme Court opinion?141.154.15.7 (talk) 17:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

RE: Following change in clearly Personal Opinion

and mistaken person opinion at that.

The Revolutionary War ended in 1783 upon the signing of the Treaty of Paris. I hope other editors can agree that it is a tad HARD for changes in English law AFTER 1783 to change the opinion of someone in 1780.

English law after the American Revolution had evolved and expressly recognized the right to have arms for self defense. In 1780 after some riots, the recorder of London - the city attorney - was asked if the right to arms protected armed groups, He wrote{{quote|The right of his majesty's Protestant subjects, to have arms for their own defense, and to use them for lawful purposes, is most clear and undeniable.141.154.76.26 (talk) 20:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleted above referenced personal opinion again - further - I would like to point out that changes in English Law after the Revolution do not impact the Second Amendment.141.154.76.26 (talk) 22:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this doesn't belong here. It's another example of equating the Right with the Amendment - assuming that everything about arms, anywhere in the world, somehow affects the Second Amendment. (Truwik (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC))

Listing "sad consequences" should not be part of the article

Referencing the following quote which I just deleted.

The sad consequences of this turn of events is evident in the lynchings of at least 3,446 blacks between 1882 and 1968.

Adding quotes like the above leads to places I don't think anyone here wants to go to. If this quote is allowed I would have to try to add things like

Naming Washington DC as the murder capital of the US due to the fact that the people there could not defend themselves from criminals

or

The fact that one of the reasons Hawaii was not invaded by the Japanese was the large number of guns possessed by civilians

or even

How WWI war hero St York became a hero because he already knew how to shoot, based on his experience with his personal arms.141.154.76.26 (talk) 22:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The quoted sentence was definitely original research and so you were right to remove it from the article. SMP0328. (talk) 23:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

SMP0328, would you research before you judge please. Confirm that you were mistaken and then strike out your statement above please. The deleted sentence is almost a verbatim quote from the cited ref, the 1995 Seton Hall Constitutional Law Journal article by Sayoko Blodgett-Ford. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Whether the quote was verbatum or not does not mean it has a place in this article.141.154.15.7 (talk) 14:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Why do you feel this? Your personal opinion carries little weight relative to what we read in reliable sourcing. Based on reliable sourcing, the issue of arming of freed slaves was the central issue regarding the Second Amendment during this important phase of US history, and it was the core of the Cruikshank decision, which reverberates even today. SaltyBoatr (talk)

Lynching statistics do not belong in an article on the Second Amendment.141.154.15.7 (talk) 14:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the consequences of the right to arms should not be in this Article. If it belongs anywhere, it would be in the 'Right to Keep and Bear Arms' Article. This Article is not about the Right - the 2A could be repealed, and Americans would still have the Right (Rights are inalienable) - it's about federal infringement on the Right. The issue of disarming freed slaves as being related to the 2A was settled in Cruikshank 134 years ago, and reaffirmed in Heller just last year. It had nothing to do with the 2A. (Truwik (talk) 19:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC))

Removed unbalanced material regarding "Scholarly reaction" to Heller

I have removed the following from the Background:

Scholarly reaction to the majority opinion has been largely negative. Conservative J. Harive Wilkinson in the Virginia Law Review attacked the decision and similar attacks have been made by liberals such as Reva Siegel in the Harvard Law Review. Scholarly reaction seems to echo Tushnet's view that the evidence was too close to call and the court may have made a mistake invoking originalist arguments, a point made by Cass Sunstein, who generally approved the outcome of the case, Harvard Law Review.

How can only a few people count as showing the general "reaction" among those considered to be "scholarly". Although possibly unintentionally so, that material results in a POV push. Before being restored to the article, that material should be clarified so as not to give the impression that "Scholarly reaction" has been largely negative and to clarify that a negative reaction to Heller from one person may be very different from that of another person. For example, one person may not like that Heller shot down D.C.'s gun ban, while another person may not like that Heller didn't read the Second Amendment to protect an absolute RKBA (no gun regulations allowed). Both reactions are technically "negative", but such a description of them would be misleading. SMP0328. (talk) 02:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

(First, I would suggest using the 'Heller' caption only to references in the Heller case. Here, your topic title could have been 'Background' and your first statement "I have removed the following:" It would be easier to follow.)

My experience with so-called scholars is that they are, almost all, opposed to the Heller decision. Sanford Levinson (99 Yale L.J. pp. 637-659, 1989) said: "I cannot help but suspect that the best explanation for the absence of the Second Amendment from the legal consciousness of the elite bar, including that component found in the legal academy, is derived from a mixture of sheer opposition to the idea of private ownership of guns and the perhaps subconscious fear that altogether plausible, perhaps even "winning," interpretations of the Second Amendment would present real hurdles to those of us supportive of prohibitory regulation..." This was 19 years before Heller, but I have seen no change in that scholarly viewpoint. It demonstrates a near-total disrespect for a constitutional law. (Truwik (talk) 16:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC))

Kozuskanich and Cramer

I have deleted the reference to Cramer's effort to smear Kozuskanich by implying he supported Bellesiles. It has no relevance to the issue of the use of the phrase bear arms and misrepresents Kozuskanich's claim which was made in a different article about the Pennsylvania Constitution. As has been discussed here-- Kozuskanich merely mentioned Bellesiles book in a footnote that also cited the major critiques of the book. Since the discussion was in a different article, did not even come close to supporting the Bellesiles thesis, mentioned the critiques it is nothing but tossing mud-- this verges on McCarthyismPhilo-Centinel (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

And, I have deleted the unbalanced criticism of Cramer by Kozuskanich. It would be much the same as using the Hitler Diaries as a cited source to use Bellesiles/Kozuskanich here without balance, being the fraud that Michael Bellesiles promulgated and which Kozuskanich references. The combined removed content was:

However, Cramer and Olson's methodology has been challenged by historian Nathan Kozuskanich, a protege of Saul Cornell, in an article in the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law. Kozuskanich found that Cramer and Olson had missed 95 percent of occurrences of the term bear arms and most of these supported the militia view. However, Clayton Cramer notes that in this paper, Kozuskanich references Michael Bellesiles heavily without mentioning that Bellesiles was found to have committed academic fraud, and that Bellesiles resigned his academic chair at Emory University, bringing the claims of Kozuskanich regarding military usages of the term "bear arms" into question. (Bellesiles was investigated by Emory University for research misconduct. After the committee found him "guilty of unprofessional and misleading work," Bellesiles resigned his professorship in October 2002, and the Bancroft Prize of Columbia University, earlier awarded the book, was rescinded.)

The criticism of Cramer based upon fraud should not be allowed to remain in an unbalanced POV. If one goes, they both should be removed, to achieve NPOV. Or, if one stays, they both should stay, to achieve NPOV. But, a single-sided attack on Cramer is not NPOV. Yaf (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

This is abusurd-- Kozuskanich did not defend, support, or in anyway endorse Bellesiles-- he cited his book and the criticism. Had Kozuskanich cited Bellesiles without the criticism that would be an issue, given that he did the appropriate scholarly thing--this is a non-issue. Moreover, it has nothing to do with Kozuskanich's evidence that Cramer's work is flawed and not reliable-- never mind that Cramer is an activist and not a scholar and that he has taken funding from the NRA-- once again the gun rights double standardPhilo-Centinel (talk) 15:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been pointing out for months that Cornell has taken Joyce Foundation money. I even tried getting him banned from the article for that reason, with no success. If you believe that someone should be banned because he took NRA money, why should someone else stay who took Joyce Foundation money?141.154.9.221 (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Bellesiles is being used as a boogieman, a form of ad hominem logic. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

A separate issue is exactly how does the article benefit from POV war in the top "background" section? It would be better for the article to avoid battling so high up and prominent in the article. Leave out both.SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

If this is the phrase in dispute, then editors should aware it references BOTH civilian usage (defense of themselves, killing game) and military usage (defending the state or the US).

[T]he people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed.141.154.9.221 (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Also speaking of people who took Joyce Foundation money, Ravoke's article on the "paid propaganda" issue of Chicago Ken Law Review is currently being used in citation 20.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Joyce-Foundation

Law review symposia

The Joyce Foundation has sponsored symposium issues of some law reviews, generally offering to pay for the symposium if an external editor is selected. The editor carefully solicits and chooses the articles to appear in the symposium. The Joyce Foundation then pays for the cost of copies to be distributed to judges and legislators. Law reviews that have cooperated in this manner include:

• Chicago-Kent Law Review (Vol. 76 No. 1, 2000, edited by Carl T. Bogus)
• Fordham Law Review (Vol. 73 No. 2, November 2004)
• Stanford Law and Policy Review (Vol. 17:3, Spring 2006, editorial contributions by Saul Cornell)

Bellesiles also had an article in that Chicago Kent issue and was used by Ravoke 7 times as a verifiable source in his article, making its conclusions and quality further suspect

http://lawreview.kentlaw.edu/articles/76-1/index.htm 141.154.9.221 (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

without regard to the other issues, i agree that the use of a bellesiles connection to impugn the kozuskanich information is a fruitless path. it is guilt by association. Anastrophe (talk) 19:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

We have been through these gun rights conspiracy theories about the Joyce foundation many times. The Stanford and Fordham law reviews were student edited-- all editorial control was in the hands of students--end of discussion. The Chicago- Kent symposium was one sided, but so was the U of Tenn Law Review symposium dominated by gun rights scholars organized prior to Chicago-Kent. Scholars need resources to do research and the fact that they got grants, which includes scholars on both the gun rights and gun control side, does not necessarily impugn the research done with the money--one should certainly take note of this fact--but the research stands on its own or it does not. Rakove may have cited Bellesiles, but most of the article has nothing to do with Bellesiles. The argument about Kozuskanich is even more distorted- we are talking about a single neutral reference that merely notes that Bellesiles published a book and that lists the major academic critiques of the bookPhilo-Centinel (talk) 20:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Stanford Law and Policy Review (Vol. 17:3, Spring 2006, editorial contributions by Saul Cornell)141.154.9.221 (talk) 20:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Would a neutral cite in a scholarly work citing the Hitler Diaries be considered neutral? No. But, both Arming America and the Hitler Diaries were frauds of the same magnitude. So, citing content from Michael Bellesiles without mentioning the fraud is hardly a "neutral reference". Rather, it reads like an endorsement. Kozuskanich has subsequently mentioned that he was unaware of the controversy surrounding Bellesiles work when he wrote his article. This hardly speaks to a neutral reference. Rather, it reads like an extreme POV push into this article using either a biased, or largely unaware, reference. In either case, it doesn't belong here. Yaf (talk) 20:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Comparing Bellesiles to Hitler is a wee bit over the top.  :) SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

No comparisons were made to Hitler. But, a comparison between Michael Bellesiles and Konrad Kujau is a fair comparison. Yaf (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

When asserted "fraud" you have crossed the WP:BLP line towards slander. At least have the decency to insert the word "alleged". SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no alleged about it. Bellesiles was found to have committed fraud.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_A._Bellesiles

Garry Wills, who had enthusiastically reviewed Arming America for the New York Times, later said, "I was took. The book is a fraud." He also told an interviewer for C-SPAN that Bellesiles "claimed to have consulted archives he didn't and he misrepresented those archives," lamenting that Bellesiles did not have to do it, since he had good evidence for many of his claims. Wills added, "People get taken by very good con men." [13] Historian Roger Lane, who had reviewed the book positively for the Journal of American History, offered a similar opinion: "It is entirely clear to me that he's made up a lot of these records. He's betrayed us. He's betrayed the cause. It's 100 percent clear that the guy is a liar and a disgrace to my profession. He's breached that trust."141.154.9.221 (talk) 21:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Huh? All I see is the Garry Wills and Roger Lane have alleged some things. Nothing more. Be careful when you make potentially libelous claims. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you try clicking on the link to see where that libelous claim is printed.141.154.9.221 (talk) 00:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

If you actually pick a copy of the Stanford Law and Policy issue, available at any good law school library, in question you will see that Cornell had an article in the issue. He did not write the intro which was written by Robert Weisberg nor did he edit any of the articles or exercise any editorial control. As far as the Kozuskanich business goes a single reference that simply notes the publication of the book and the critiques bears no relation to a citation to the Hitler diaries or anything else. The footnote dealt with the question of the counting of guns in America-- it was not necessary to talk about the Bellesiles scandal the only scholarly obligatin was to make clear that Bellesiles low estimates for gun ownership were challenged and that scholarship has moved on- as should we!Philo-Centinel (talk) 21:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Stanford Law and Policy Review (Vol. 17:3, Spring 2006, editorial contributions by Saul Cornell) 141.154.9.221 (talk) 00:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this claim based on dubious internet sources or are you actually holding a copy of the actual issue in your hands and making a claim based on an examination of the issue itself. I have not had time to go to a law library to check this out, but my recollection was that no such evidence exists and that this charge is simply internet conspiracy theory. The issue was edited by the students and the introduction was written by a senior member of the Stanford faculty,Conlawgeek (talk) 13:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Are YOU holding a copy in your hands, and how do you have a recollection if you never read it? Letter below clearly indicated that Joyce, through Cornell, funded that issue, and the funding caused such a stink that Stanford institute new policies to fully reveal funding sources.

http://www.stanford.edu/group/slpr/statement.pdf68.162.215.104 (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Doing a little detective work, I find an interesting match in punctuation to an old Wikipedia page on the Joyce Foundation from September 20th, 2008 see here[19]. Notice that the reference to Saul Cornell is edited out by an AnonIP[20] on October 16, 2008. My best guess based on this is that the sourcing for the AnonIP claim might be from Wikipedia directly or indirectly, and not from reading the physical paper document, just a guess though. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Doing some more detective work, it looks like the "editorial contributions by Saul Cornell" passage in the Joyce Foundation article was added during an edit war on August 21 and August 22, 2006 primarily from Special:Contributions/Claytoncramer and AnonIP Special:Contributions/24.145.225.95 who clearly is a sockpuppet for User:Claytoncramer. Also, it is a reasonable guess that Special:Contributions/Bill_of_Rights is an associated sockpuppet. More, it is interesting to notice that this AnonIP 24.145.225.95 has a history here at this article too. And, when you compare the writing style and behavioural evidence of this 2006 AnonIP with the 2009 AnonIP, I see similarities but I invite other editors to reach their own opinion. I am not going to ask aloud the obvious quesiton which comes to my mind but you can guess. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It is also interesting to notice that the AnonIP harangue about the Joyce Foundation funding of the Chicago Kent Law Review is mirrored[21] by Clayton Cramer at his blog. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It's probably mirrored in a ton of other places as well. Facts tend to get repeated.68.162.215.104 (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

AnonIP, Are you Clayton Cramer? SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you made of green cheese?68.163.105.67 (talk) 21:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually I have read the entire issue, but no I have not memorized it. Nobody denies that Joyce funded the conference, the issue is Cornell's editorial involvement. I think we can now consider it settled that what we are talking about is funding a conference, not controlling the publication of a journal. Nobody beyond Stanford had any editorial involvement in the actual issue. Case closed. Gossip and propaganda get repeated quite as much if not more on the internet than facts, and the material on Clayton Cramer is interesting to say the least. The plot thickens! Conlawgeek (talk) 17:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

One thing of interest here is the behavioral pattern of the AnonIP editor, especially the civility effect on this talk page over the last few months. Relative to that, I notice that Clayton E. Cramer was publicly documented in 1995 as being notorious for having a deleterious effect in forums: "Clayton seems to have made it his personal crusade to move into relatively sane groups and turn them into stinking hells of political flame". I will leave it up to other editors to judge if there is resemblance between the 1995 observed behavior pattern and the AnonIP 2009 behavior pattern here on this article talk page. Four administrative blocks in quick succession may also be evidence of consistency in behavior pattern: [22] and [23] and [24] and [25] for this AnonIP editor. SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

you're citing a 1994 (note - 94, not 95) USENET alt. groups FAQ posting as something being "publicly documented"? wow. your threshhold for reliable sources has taken a nosedive. ;^)

while i love a good conspiracy theory, i give same about as much credence as the folks wearing tinfoil hats out near area 51. this falls in the same category. Anons by nature tend not to conform to community standards here; that's evidenced by their being the overwhelming source for vandalism on WP. trying to figure out who's behind an anon is fruitless - much like trying to find out who is behind any wikipedia id, for that matter (see my user page for a taste). rather than engaging in these public speculations about whether evil anon is evil dr. cramer, why not just get on with dealing with this article? your speculations aren't particularly helpful, ultimately. maybe conlawgeek is cornell? based on his implacable defenses of cornell, it must be the case! (sarcasm). Anastrophe (talk) 00:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't take my word for it then, these Usenet postings of Clayton Cramer are fully public. Judge for your self if the writing and behavioral style is similar to our 2009 AnonIP. SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

And, I think this evidence rises well above "tin foil hat" realm. The 2009 AnonIP cited the sentence Stanford Law and Policy Review (Vol. 17:3, Spring 2006, editorial contributions by Saul Cornell). This sentence which has been deleted from Wikipedia for nearly six months now, matches the punctuation exactly with a sentence which first appeared[26] during an edit war August 21st -> 22nd, 2006 in which Special:Contributions/Claytoncramer was a participant. Not proof, but truly an astonishing coincidence that the punctuation would match exactly like that. Also, check the nature of the 2006 edit war, with push and pull over the funding of the Joyce Foundation, very odd coincidental match with the 2009 AnonIP edit warring. SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

again i ask, what is accomplished by the speculations? you're aware that on usenet, just like here, nobody knows you're a dog. maybe anon has been trying to impersonate cramer for years? who know? who cares? i suppose if you could prove that it's cramer, you'd have a case for WP:COI. good luck with that. again: internet, dog, nobody knows. Anastrophe (talk) 02:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

oh, and lest we get any of the typical heckles (not necessarily from you, sb), i'm no fan of this particular anon. his/her style is often times childish and overbearing, referring to other people's ideas as "a pile of soft warm stuff", etc., which is just juvenile. anon's refusal to get a username also doesn't help - so you get a username and you get banned - you open a new user account later. big deal. hey, he could open an account named User:NotClaytonCramer, that'd prove it! ;^) Anastrophe (talk) 03:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that CUTTING AND PASTING a quote on the internet does seem to give the PASTE the same punctuation as the CUT. But being an ignorant pro-gun nut, what would I know?68.162.243.115 (talk) 13:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

civility - lets end the flame wars

Anastrophe asked above: "What is accomplished by the speculations?" My answer is that in order to fix this article we need to restore the ability to again have constructive discussions on the article talk page. Such conversations are impossible in the poisoned air created by flame wars. Clayton Cramer has been described as having a long history of instigating flame wars. The 2009 AnonIP has also fanned the fires of flame wars, and there is compelling evidence that this is a long term issue dating to August 2006 with user:Claytoncramer.

[personal attack snipped, see discussion at Wikiquette Alerts#an untenable personal attack ]

Indeed, this is a remarkable record of hurt and harm to the collaborative editing atmosphere, poisoned air, causing immeasurable damage to our ability to create an encyclopedia. We need end the flame wars and bring back Civility to this talk page in order to be able to work productively again on the article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

SaltyBoatr, please stop this immediately. This page is for discussion of the article--not discussion of your speculations and opinions of other editors. Either take your theories to the appropriate notice board, or drop it. --Hamitr (talk) 16:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Our ability to collaborate on this talk page is very relevant to this article. Which notice board do you suggest? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)