Humanities desk
< January 28	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 30 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 29

UK Monarch's religion

If Charles, Prince of Wales converted to Catholicism, could he succeed the throne? If not, what would happen to him?--115.75.129.234 (talk) 03:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, he could not. If he did convert to Catholicism, he'd be expressly forbidden from assuming the throne, per the Succession to the Crown Act 1707. What would happen is that the closest non-Catholic would become the heir-presumptive to the throne, and that would be his son Prince William of Wales. --Jayron32 04:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If Prince Charles was unable to assume the throne, then the next in line would take his place. In this instance that would be his brother Prince Andrew Duke of York, and then would be succeeded by Princess Beatrice. Prince William could only ascend the throne if his father had himself been crowned king. Precedent for this can be found with the abdication of George VI with the crown passing to his brother.

Heir Presumptive? I thought that applied only to females first in line who have no eligible brothers. Before her accession, Queen Elizabeth was Heiress Presumptive because, while she had no brothers, there was always the technical possibility her parents could have done the decent thing and given her one, thus supplanting her from her place in the line of succession. But nobody could ever supplant William once his father becomes ineligible, unless he himself becomes or marries a Catholic, so he'd be Heir Apparent in this scenario, I think. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 05:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This topic seems to have piqued my interest, so I'd like to divert the question a little bit: what if hypothetically Prince Charles assumes the throne, then converts to Catholicism? What would happen then? --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 06:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Act of Settlement 1701 says: Excluding those princesses who have married into Catholic royal families abroad, only one member of the Royal Family (i.e., with the style Royal Highness) has converted to Roman Catholicism since the passage of the act: the Duchess of Kent, wife of Prince Edward, Duke of Kent. The Duchess converted to Roman Catholicism on 14 January 1994, however, her husband did not lose his place in the succession, as the Duchess was an Anglican at the time of their marriage. That suggests that the law is only about the line of succession, but once the person at the top becomes the monarch, they're no longer in the line of succession, so maybe they'd be safe. I sort of doubt this interpretation, however. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 06:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be inclined to say that if a monarch wished to convert to Catholicism (or anything other than CoE Christianity really) they would be forced to abdicate first. Prokhorovka (talk) 09:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If any of these scenarios came to pass, the law would be changed. It's been on the cards for years but we've got more important things to worry about. That's how the British Constitutuion works. When something needs changing, it gets changed. Otherwise let sleeping dogs lie. Alansplodge (talk) 09:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If Charles were to abdicate, probably no-one would mind, just as no-one much would actually care about his religion so long as he wasn't too overt about it. But it's interesting to speculate about what would happen if there was a genuinely very popular monarch, with an unpopular line of succession, who converted, and was told that, constitutionally, they would need to abdicate. Hypothetically, for example, if the present incumbent was so charmed by the Pope that she had an overnight conversion. Unlikely, I know. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its an interesting curiosity that the Act covers succession to the throne, it is less clear what would happen to a monarch who converted after s/he had been crowned. That said the failure to repeal the Act is institutionalised prejudice --Snowded ^TALK 09:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, much the same thing applies to the precedence given to a male heir over his older sisters. I heard something in the last few years about a move to perhaps actually change that, but I don't think anything came of it -- anyone know what I'm talking about? With either change, a massive complicating factor would be the fact that all 16 Commonwealth realms would have to make the same change or else they might find themselves with different monarchs at some time. --Anonymous, 10:27 UTC, January 29, 2011.

Well, and why shouldn't they? Great Britain and Hanover had the same monarch for a while, and then they didn't anymore. Why couldn't the same be true of, say, Great Britain and Canada? Say, for example, that the UK changes its succession law so that the oldest child inherits, regardless of sex; but Canada keeps the current arrangement. Then say that William & Kate's first child is a daughter and their second child is a son. Then the next monarch after William would be a queen in Britain and a king in Canada. What's wrong with that? 85.178.81.77 (talk) 10:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why shouldn't they indeed. But that's not what the Statute of Westminster says. It says that all 16 realms must have exactly the same monarch at all times and exactly the same succession rules at all times. Changing any of these rules would be extraordinarily difficult, as the least populated realm can veto the other 15. It would take a statesman of world standing to persuade all 16 governments to go the same way at the same time, but such a person would probably not be interested in getting involved in such an issue when matters of much more massive moment motivate magnificent minds mightily. Hmmmm ... -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 11:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong in principle. However, the Statute of Westminster 1931 requires any change to the rules of succession to be voluntarily agreed upon by the parliaments of all Commonwealth realms. This is somewhat unlikely. It's probably also undesirable - on a practical level, more royals mean more cost, and less prestige for any individual king or queen. And on another level, the monarchy is the common symbol of shared heritage. Splitting it up removes one of its key functions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another interesting scenario: What if the current monarch's oldest son is a transsexual and becomes a woman? Would she then lose her place in line, and be ranked after her younger brothers in the order of succession, despite having previously been heir apparent? 85.178.81.77 (talk) 10:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The true answer for most of these questions is that the Parliament of the United Kingdom would pass some new laws concerning Royal succession. Its honourable members would probably carefully analyse public Opinion polls and then vote according to their conscience. "A transsexual on the British throne" is probably a big stretch in the UK. Flamarande (talk) 11:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Statute of Westminster applies here as well. Interestingly enough, from a constitutional point of view, just ignoring the gender change works out fine. The monarch has the right to determine their own style and name. So if Prince Henrietta (née Prince Henry) assumes the throne, (s)he can style herself Queen Ludmilla of Transylvania without any problems. I'd bet the British would get used to it in less than 3 years, and in 30 it would have become part of the quaint charm of the kingdom (or should that be queerdom?). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Transsexuals are not necessarily queer, or was that a pyto? :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 13:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd strongly maintain that a transsexual Prince Henrietta who assumes the British throne as Queen Ludmilla of Transylvania is mightily queer! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two useful points here: 1) Read about Michael Dillon and Sir Ewan Forbes, 11th Baronet, both in line for baronetcies, both female-to-male transsexuals. In Dillon's case it was given as an expert's opinion that he was still eligible to inherit; in Forbes's case he actually did. The important point here is that females cannot inherit baronetcies. So at one point, a sex change did alter the rules of succession. 2) But in the Gender Recognition Act 2004, we read:

The fact that a person’s gender has become the acquired gender under this Act— (a)does not affect the descent of any peerage or dignity or title of honour...

so this is no longer the case. Since it says "any... dignity or title of honour", I'd assume it also applies to the Crown, but I am not a lawyer. Marnanel (talk) 15:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all for your detailed and somewhat unexpected answers.--115.75.129.234 (talk) 03:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential signature

I watched President Obama's State of the Union address the other night. After the speech, as Obama was leaving the house, I noticed many people were handing their invite/programme(?) to the president for him to sign. Were these just enthusiastic autograph collectors (senators and representatives can be autograph collectors too), or was there another purpose for signing? Do these signed invites/programmes end up on eBay or are they more likely framed? Does anything prevent politicians selling such memorabilia? Astronaut (talk) 13:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parking validation. 80.123.210.172 (talk) 15:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would suspect the motive for asking for autographs is to have a keepsake... but, no, there is nothing to prevent politicians from selling such memorabilia on eBay (or giving it as a "gift" to some supporter, as a thank you a large donation to the politician's re-election campaign fund.) Of course if too many the signed programs came up for sale (or were given away with a quid pro quo), they would not be worth all that much... rarity being an important factor in the Presidential memorabilia market.

And indeed, every other memorabilia market, indeed the relative scarcity of any resource is a crucial component of it's price. Prokhorovka (talk) 19:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC) [reply]

I'd be careful about the second part of you're statement. Marx, Menger, Jevons, Walras and others didn't think it's that simple. 80.123.210.172 (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also think twice before typing "indeed" so much. It makes one sound like a wanker. 173.11.0.145 (talk) 20:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note... ever notice how the President always uses something like five or six pens to sign his name on legislation? These pens are given away to lawmakers and supporters... and everyone who gets one can say, "This is the pen that the President used to sign the important Parakeet Rights Act of 2011 into law" (wow!). Never mind that there are four or five other people that can say the same thing about the pens that they were given. Blueboar (talk) 16:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's like people getting the flags that flew above the American senate (?). In reality they just fly for a second or two, and there are thousands of them. 92.28.244.55 (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consider it this way. Let's say you have a paper signed by the president. Does someone else in the country has something like it? Surely, hundreds of people. Does someone in your family, work or goup of friends have it? It's very unlikely MBelgrano (talk) 00:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quacks

What are some famous historical or fictional (medical) doctors who were (or are) well known to be quacks? I exclude medical practices which are now known to be incorrect (such as humourology) but were widely accepted in their time period. 24.92.70.160 (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, quackery (medical fraud) is alive and well today, see Andrew Wakefield for a famous example from the recent news. Historically, I suppose you could consider John Harvey Kellogg as something of a famous quack; though I think his quackery was more well intentioned than Dr. Wakefield's. --Jayron32 19:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article is Quackery#Notable_historical_persons_accused_of_quackery... AnonMoos (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wilhelm Fliess is considered rather quacky, and would have been pretty quacky in his time. Frankly there are a lot of historical quacks; if you try to do anything "cutting edge," you're bound to be wrong a good deal of the time, in the past anyway. Samuel Hahnemann definitely rates as a quack in my book. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Information collected by banks

I once told my bank that I work at a certain company. Now that information is on my file at the bank. I asked them to remove it because I don't see any reason for it to remain there. I was told that federal law requires them to collect the information. Is this true? Thanks. 66.108.223.179 (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't say where you are, but in the UK (and quite possibly elsewhere in Europe) banks are obliged to check you really are who you say you are when you later call them. They do this by asking for snippits of personal information that allegedly give the call centre operative the confidence that you are you and not someone looking to empty your bank account. Tyhe name of your employer might be one of these. Astronaut (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably part of anti-money laundering legislation, which includes a requirement to "know your customer". I don't know the details of US law (I'm assuming that's the federation you refer to), but I wouldn't be surprised if it includes such provisions. --Tango (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably you do not have your employer pay your salary directly into your bank account? If you do, the bank must know where it's coming from. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 02:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not so much that they have the information, but whether they use (or don't use) it appropriately, and whether you have the right to see the information yourself and make sure that it is accurate. HiLo48 (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Banks are required to know your "source of income", per the Patriot Act. Unless you work for a drug cartel, or a suspected front for terrorism, you don't need to worry about this. Big Brother may be able to watch, but he really doesn't care. Blueboar (talk) 02:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are paid by bank transfer then they have your employer's bank account and sort code. They can ask that bank for employer's name. Anyway most salary transfers normally have your employer's name in the reference field (as shown on your bank statement). Whois reports OP's IP's is allocated to Virginia, USA. CS Miller (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you take a loan from a bank it's common (at least in the UK) for them to ask for proof of income/employment, which often takes the form of a letter from your company stating your salary and period of employment. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Double entry bookkeeping and bank statements

How far could you go in generating a double entry bookkeeping set of accounts from bank statemenmts? What extra information would you need? Thanks 92.28.244.55 (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With double entry bookkeeping, a transaction would generally have two sets of two entries. For example, if you sell something, you initially you credit "income" and "accounts receivable". Then, when you get paid, you credit "bank account" and debit "accounts receivable". The bank statement gives you everything you need to know for the second set of accounts. It doesn't give you enough information for the first set, though (although you may be able to infer it based on your knowledge of the business). The bank statement doesn't say what it is you sold, for example, or when you did it. It just tell you that a particular person has given you a particular amount of money on a particular date. --Tango (talk) 23:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bank statements forsee the future

One weekend I was looking at my (British) bank-statement online. I could see several enteries for the following monday, in the future. How did that happen? 92.28.244.55 (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought entries processed after 15:30 on Fridays (ie. over the weekend) were credited/debited the next working day, usually Monday. Your account's terms and conditions should spell this out for you. Quite how you can see these items on Saturday afternoon is a mystery that perhaps you should ask your bank about. Astronaut (talk) 22:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue for whom? The OP does not seem to be asking anything related to data protection. --Tango (talk) 23:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Posted something in the wrong section. It's gone from here now. Feel free to delete your post and this one if you want. HiLo48 (talk) 02:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing mysterious about it. As far as the bank is concerned, for purposes of dating transactions Monday (or Tuesday, if Monday is a holiday) simply begins at 15:30 or whatever the cutoff time on Friday is. For that matter, it's quite possible that Thursday begins at 15:30 on Wednesday, and so on. So when you look at the statement on Saturday, of course it includes transaction dated Monday: in a sense it already is Monday. --Anonymous, 10:48 UTC, January 30, 2011.

What kind of entries were they? --Tango (talk) 23:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How much of our knowledge of history is modern

Were educated English people of a few hundred years ago (say of Elizabethan times) aware of the exploits of the Roman Empire, the ancient Greeks and Egyptians? So, is our understanding of history largely from knowledge passed down through the ages or a comparatively modern rediscovery through archeology? Astronaut (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

one would assume so. This bloke wrote a play about Anthony and Cleopatra for example. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say both. There are new things being discovered all the time about ancient civilisations, so in that sense we know more than the Elizabethans did. But their education systems (for those who could afford it) were more detailed - they had kids in primary school learning Latin and Greek, and their texts were taken from historians and playwrights from those eras, whose works were rich in detail about historical people and events. So in that sense they knew more than we do. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 23:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They knew almost as much about Rome as about their own country -- nearly every educated person was taught Latin, and the main Latin authors were standard reading. They certainly knew about Greece, especially Alexander and his conquests, but only a small minority could read and write the language. Most of their remaining knowledge of history came from the Bible, which by Elizabethan times had been translated into English. Concerning most other things their knowledge of history was hit and miss -- everybody knew about the Crusades, for example, and also about King Arthur. Looie496 (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Astronaut -- A lot of Latin books (and a lesser but still very significant amount of Greek books) were printed up from manuscripts in western Europe for the first time in the late 15th century and the 16th century, and there was a whole movement of rediscovery of Classical civilization. AnonMoos (talk) 23:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While educated persons certainly was well versed in Greek and Roman history through the classical texts, it is quite a different case when it comes to the Egyptians, especially pre-Hellenistic Egypt. They would have known something from writers like Herodotus and Manetho, but until the deciphering of the Egyptian hieroglyphs and the development of egyptology and archaeology, solid information about the ancient Egyptians was scarce. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of our knowledge is from reading classics. More classics in Latin and Greek were available to Europe after the fall of Constaninople in 1453. Translations of more classics from Arabic were made available by church translators in Sicily and Iberia. Educated women knew nothing of history as the rich learnt needlepoint and music.
Sleigh (talk) 23:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While the majority of women were indeed educated mostly in domestic skills and crafts, a minority with enquiring minds and/or ambitious or indulgent parents or guardians may have been able to access texts and study either by themselves or with tutors. Elizabeth I, for example, though not in her childhood expected to inherit the throne, was literate in Latin, Italian, French and Greek as well as English. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 02:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doh! I forgot entirely about Shakespere and the classics. I suppose I was thinking more of my own experience of being taught about the ancient world and then being able to get a feel for it through tourism and TV documentaries - perhaps imagining the Elizabethans being enthrtalled by contemporary travellers' tales of seeing Roman ruins, the Parthenon or the Pyramids. Astronaut (talk) 00:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that academics in Elizabethan England knew a LOT more about the ancient history of Greece and Rome than they did about their own country. Knowledge of the history of Britain was based on Geoffrey of Monmouth's work, The History of the Kings of Britain and the numerous retellings of it. This included myths such as the giant Gogmagog, which is obviously ludicrous to us, but was believed to be true until well into the 17th Century. Serious historians such as Raphael Holinshed and William Camden happily repeated the tales of old King Coel, and King Bladud who made himself a sort of hang glider and plunged to his death from the roof of a temple in London. Shakespeare wrote King Lear and Cymbeline believing them to be based on fact. Alansplodge (talk) 09:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But then again they also did tend to take many of the more fantastical tales of the ancient works more literally than we do today. Countless examples could be pointed out, but in the historical vein one could mention the tales of Romulus and Remus from Livy and the one of Aenas by Vergil, and in the more scientific field the The Natural Historiy of Pliny the Elder was considered an important text book well into the 17th century. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite right. Another source of information on the ancient world was the Old Testament; we're still arguing about how much of that is historically valid today. Alansplodge (talk) 14:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to continue on that theme, you don't have to read very much 19th century social science (what would be called history, archaeology, anthropology, etc. today) before you notice that much of it was based on sailor stories, old wives' tales, and the like. These would then be built into fleshed-out theories suitable for books with the aid of conjecture (which in turn was informed by such solid sciences as phrenology, Freudian psychology, racial characteristics, and the like). IOW, well-read people were not necessarily well-informed people (in the sense of actually knowing the facts). Matt Deres (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But though quite a lot was known about the people and events of Ancient Rome, Ancient Greece, and the places and events of the Bible, I suspect that people in general would have had rather less of a sense than today of how living styles, manners and attitudes would have been different from their own time. --ColinFine (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our "knowledge" of history was fundamentally remade during the 20th century and continues to be.--Wetman (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gunfight at the O.K. Corral

When the Tombstone Marshal required citizens to give up their guns when in the town, wasnt this unconstitutional and hence illegal in American law? 92.28.244.55 (talk) 23:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was the right to form a militia being impinged? -- AnonMoos (talk) 23:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand what you mean. 92.28.244.55 (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The second amendment to the constitution gives people the right to own guns to form a militia. As far as I know, no one in Tombstone was trying to form a militia. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do I sense another gunfight about to start here? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More likely a case of MAD... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) A less flippant answer: According to Wikipedia's article on Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, the idea that the second amendment extended to an individual right for any citizen to own any gun at any time is quite recent, dating to the 20th century. The earlier interpretation tended more to think of the gun ownership right described there as a 'collective right' for groups of people. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another issue to consider is that Barron v. Baltimore originally ruled that the Bill of Rights is not binding on state (and by extension local) governments. So while "Congress' shall make no law ...", state and local governments were free to. Since then, the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution has generally be interpreted as meaning that the US Constitution binds state and local governments too. However, the incorporation doctrine didn't really materialize until the 1890s. With respect to the Second Amendment specifically, the Supreme Court decision that formally incorporated it against the states wasn't actually made until 2010 (McDonald v. Chicago). A complication of all this is that Tombstone was not part of a state, but in a Federal territory - but the law was a local one, rather than a congressional mandate. I can't say for certain, but it might be that no one expected the Constitution to apply. -- 174.21.236.191 (talk) 00:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the actual answer is, no one at the time cared whether the law was constitutional or not. I doubt the Earps gave it a though. Blueboar (talk) 02:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From a european perspective, the 5 to 4 District of Columbia v. Heller decision seems to be the worst day in American history, as the opportunity to toughen up weak gun laws and save thousands of American lives every year from gun-killings was lost. I'm amazed you let gun-thugs have their way. 92.29.125.152 (talk) 12:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of much worse days. I sure hope that's not the European perspective. Shadowjams (talk) 06:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More Americans die every year from gun deaths as died on 9/11. 92.24.189.12 (talk) 13:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a decade old, but this CDC document shows that as of 1994, there were generally more deaths by auto accident than by firearm. So, unless you're proposing taking away our cars... — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, that would be silly. Cars are an essential part of modern society for almost everybody the world over. Guns aren't. HiLo48 (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtless Wyatt and his brothers would have defended to the death the right of the Territory of Arizona to have local companies of the "Arizona Militia" to muster and drill monthly. This had nothing to do with the right of individual thugs or lunatics to carry firearms with the intent to commit murders in the furtherance of felonies, since criminals are not related to a "well regulated militia." Edison (talk) 03:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The text of the second amendment does not, of course, restrict the right to militias. The militia language motivates the right; it does not limit it. But in any case, I agree with Blueboar; the Earps didn't give a crap what was constitutional, or indeed legal. At least that's my image of them. Criminals with badges, who may have been overall better for public safety than the ones without. --Trovatore (talk) 03:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thugs entering a town are geberally not part of a "well regulated militia" and thus generally have no protection under the 2nd Amendment against having their guns secured by the local law enforcement. If they could prove they were part of the "Militia" then they would have an argument for retaining their firearms. This is of course "strict construction" and not "revisionism." Edison (talk) 04:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, strict construction gives you that the "being necessary to" part is an explanation for the rest of it, not a restriction on it. This is just simple understanding of the English language. --Trovatore (talk) 04:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would the 18th. century militias be something like the Territorial Army (United Kingdom) is now? 92.29.125.152 (talk) 12:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, no. 18th century militias were a group of local men who volunteered to fight to defend the local territory. They weren't formally a part of any Federal army, though conscription could change that in a heartbeat. Most of these militias weren't going to travel outside their own territory to fight, as their main purpose was to protect against organized incursions of their home territory (sometimes by other state/territorial militias).Your Territorial Army is closer to our modern National Guard. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even in modern law, territories are considered to be self-regulating areas, with their own legal systems and limited oversight by the branches of the federal government. That's why to this day American Indian reservations are free to run casinos, cultivate psychoactive drugs for spiritual and medicinal purposes, and otherwise ignore state and federal restrictions on such matters. The territories of the old west were even a bit worse than that, since they often had no government at all except local government in towns and cities. US Marshalls were restricted by federal rules of behavior, and there were usually territorial governors somewhere, but for the most part local sheriffs were essentially at the top of the effective political power structure. --Ludwigs2 04:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Organized incorporated territories of the United States, like the Arizona Territory where the gunfight took place, was not exactly "self-regulating" (Congress had early outlawed slavery there, for example) and was not really like an Indian reservation. There was a territorial constitution and laws on the books. The territory had the Arizona Territorial Legislature, a supreme court, district courts, justices of the peace, municipal courts, etc. Except in Hollywood and dime novels, the Earps didn't make the laws. Before the gunfight, a Tombstone city ordinance outlawed guns in town. Eight years after the gunfight, the 15th Arizona Territorial Legislature outlawed carrying deadly weapons in towns. If those laws came under the scrutiny of the current US Supreme Court, they would be found unconstitutional per McDonald v. Chicago. Maybe the Supreme Court at the time would have had some trouble with the laws, although Presser v. Illinois (1886), which is not an exact fit, brings this into question. —Kevin Myers 07:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I presume that American prisoners are not allowed to have guns in prison. Overnight, I was wondering if this was not also technically illegal under the American "right to bear arms"? 92.29.125.152 (talk) 12:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Convicted felons are officially stripped of many of their rights by virtue of their conviction. The right to bear arms is one of them. Blueboar (talk) 14:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sure. But taking Trovatore's strictly constructionist point of view, I cannot find that restriction in the constitution. Nor does it apply to restrictions on bearing arms e.g. in the Sacramento State Capitol (where I was recently screened for them) or when boarding commercial aircraft. So how does that work out? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For felons, see the 5th Amendment; people can be deprived of "life, liberty, or property" through "due process of law". —Kevin Myers 17:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to play devil's advocate: The Fifth only says what cannot be done, not what can be done. The Second, on the other hand, is absolute ("shall not be infringed", no qualification). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, if there are any jurists today who advocate literal strict constructionism (I'm not aware of any who do), they'd presumably have trouble with those sort of linguistic twists. —Kevin Myers 20:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a few states had (and have) Constitutions that give "gun-thug" citizens the right to bear arms in addition to the Federal Constitution. It's quite possible many old laws were unconstitutional, such as laws against homosexuality, the death penalty for non-murders, and a host of other Constitutional violations. The realistic answer is that the law evolves for the times. It's notable that the general restrictions on firearms in Arizona, or the territories at the time were virtually non existent. I'd like to see the original law in Tombstone though, because in various forms I've heard it only applied to carrying the gun, not owning or possessing it in a business or home, something that McDonald avoided. Shadowjams (talk) 06:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do people known to be suffering from, say, paranoid psychosis have a right to have a gun under American law? How would this be handled in practice? Thanks 92.28.247.121 (talk) 18:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is psychosis considered to be a crime? And how would a non-public figure be "known to be" crazy? Unless the gun dealer happened to know. Because lunatics walking free are not branded with a scarlet "L" or something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]