![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 25 |
RE:Your complaint on unsourced/unsupported opinion - as follows
In the wake of Sanford Levinson's important Yale Law Journal article on the Second Amendment published in 1989 there was a flood of new scholarship on the Second Amendment. Much of this scholarship was published by pro-gun rights advocates, but a number of serious academics also entered the debate. By 1999 the weight of scholarship had appeared to shift toward an individual rights interpretation.[citation needed] If one actually looked closely at the scholarship and discounted multiple articles by the same author the balance was only slightly in favor of the individual rights view.[citation needed]
I agree that the above needs referencing and that some sort of reasonable time period should be set for anyone wanting that material in the article to find sourcing. I believe that either 1 or 2 weeks should be sufficient time for anyone wanting to keep the material to find some sort of backup. If nobody bothers to get sourcing by the end of that time period the material should be deleted as nobody finds it worth defending.
Do you vote for a 1 week, 2 week period or would you prefer another reasonable time frame? 68.163.98.56 ( talk) 15:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
6. The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government.
Toss is a quote or two from Heller that it protects an individual right and be done with it. 68.163.98.56 ( talk) 16:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
From the Stevens dissent
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. 68.163.98.56 ( talk) 16:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
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. 68.163.98.56 ( talk) 18:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
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. 68.163.98.56 ( talk) 21:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Dick Heller applied for a registration certificate for a handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He filed a lawsuit in the federal district court seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on the registration of handguns. The District Court dismissed the complaint. The Court of Appeals reversed, and held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms and that the city's ban on handguns violated that right, and directed the District Court to enter summary judgment for Heller. The Supreme Court said: We hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment. We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
SaltyBoatr is right, how could anyone understand that? We do have a clue though, Heller is described as a 'landmark' decision, wherein (for the first time in its history) the U.S. Supreme Court held a law violative of the Second Amendment. And at page 53, opinion, it said: We conclude that nothing in our precedents forecloses our adoption of the original understanding of the Second Amendment. It's a mystery, but maybe if we all got our heads together... ( Truwik ( talk) 13:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC))
Salty Boatr just added a statement that
Since Heller, over eighty lawsuits related to firearms legislation have been decided in federal court.
With the source being a newspaper. I am asking for a more verifiable source for 80 cases settled, such as a listing of court cases. After being told by newspapers for the past 2 years that the housing market has hit bottom, that the stock market has hit bottom, and that there will be no recession, never mind a depression, I am quite leery of newspaper claims to anything. Failure to provide a more verifiable source will be a "foisting" of unverifiable material. 141.154.11.202 ( talk) 21:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
http://newledger.com/2009/03/gun-rights-and-the-constitution-was-heller-insignificant/
Let’s start with the most obvious facts which the Times overlooked. On the day that Heller was decided, the citizens of five Chicago suburbs, and of Chicago itself, were prohibited from owning guns. Residents of apartments provided by the San Francisco Housing Authority were prohibited from owning any gun. Within 24 hours of the Heller decision, gun rights organizations—including the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF)—filed lawsuits against the gun bans.
Today, the residents of San Francisco public housing can own guns in their homes. In four of the five Chicago suburbs (Morton Grove, Evanston, Wilmette, and Winnetka), the handgun bans have been repealed. Yet according to the Times, “So far, Heller is firing blanks.”
BTW:I'm still waiting for that listing of 40 out of 80 cases
68.160.162.23 (
talk)
14:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
The: "This dispute over the scope of this right was discussed in District of Columbia v. Heller", here, is flat wrong. The Heller Court said "a prefatory clause [militia] does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause [infringement]". This had nothing whatsoever to do with the 'scope of this right.' Even if it did, it shouldn't be under 'English Common Law.' This is a classic example of twisting words to agree with one's agenda. ( Truwik ( talk) 17:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC))
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. 68.160.162.23 ( talk) 19:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
The link provided to show that they exist (aka the citation), goes to an abstract of an article which mentions none of these court cases. The article itself can be downloaded and a check of that shows these cases are not discussed but are merely mentioned in the footnotes. I therefore find the citation lacking. While I am not asking that they be removed, I do ask that a better citation be provided.
An example of an acceptable citation would be the following link to US v Artez
http://openjurist.org/389/f3d/1106/united-states-v-artez 68.160.162.23 ( talk) 22:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1359225 68.160.162.23 ( talk) 00:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
(outdent)so, based upon "yes", you're saying that even if notability were established in reliable sourcing, you would suggest that mention of them must be excluded from the article. interesting. my question was procedural, your followup questions were based on a literal reading that overlooked the word "if". so, i have no questions to answer. i still await an answer to my second question, to wit, "i fail to see how an out of court settlement constitutes a "red-herring". can you explain? ". Anastrophe ( talk) 15:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The focus on Spooner makes it seem like he was a mainstream theorist when he was clearly a radical abolitionist who thought slaves had a 2nd Amendment right of revolution-- sort of in the John Brown camp-- important to be sure, influential perhaps, but certainly not typical.
Story is, however, very important, and was cited in Heller and has been claimed by all sides in this debate. Conlawgeek ( talk) 13:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Funny how whenever we try to discuss law or history we always come back to these ideological issues. Do you seriously think a slave could waltz into court claim a Second Amendment right to use a gun to kill his master? Is our goal here to write something useful or turn this into another gun rights chat room?
Conlawgeek (
talk)
14:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
As I might have predicted we are back to gun rights conspiracy theories. Anyone with any law review experience, something that several of the people writing here clearly don't have, would tell you that law review editors jealously retain control of editorial content. I pulled the Fordham and Stanford issues and Cornell did not edit anything-- he wrote an article for each issue. I also did some research and found out that Joyce Lee Malcolm one of the scholars gun rights scholars love to quote took almost fifty thousand from the right wing Earhart foundation. Scholars need money to do research-- I care less about the money and more about the content. I am glad someone has mentioned civic republianism-- the Yale Law Journal devoted an entire issue to this about twenty years ago. The Second Amendment clearly grows out of the English fear of standing armies it was part of the civic republican tradition. The right of self defense was part of the common law tradition. The two are historically different. Conlawgeek ( talk) 21:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Joyce-Foundation Stanford Law and Policy Review (Vol. 17:3, Spring 2006, editorial contributions by Saul Cornell) 68.160.162.23 ( talk) 16:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
For the record: Disputing removal of well cited material from one of one of the top legal writers of the mid-1800's after a hack making Spooner sound like a wild eyed loonie.
68.160.162.23 (
talk)
18:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the following material for being unsourced:
Thus, Nathan Kozuskanich, writing in the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law surveyed the use of the term in all published sources from the period and found that a military meaning was dominant in over 95% of the occurrences. citation needed Moreover, Kozuskanich found that Cramer and Olson had understated the number of uses and missed the vast majority of occurrences. citation needed
If proper sourcing is added, it can be restored to the article. SMP0328. ( talk) 00:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
SaltyBoatr and I have removed the following as there are major problems here:
In contrast, Nathan Kozuskanich, a protege of Saul Cornell, [1] writing in the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law surveyed the use of the term in all published sources from the period and writes that a military meaning was dominant in over 95% of the occurrences. Moreover, Kozuskanich writes that Cramer and Olson had understated the number of uses and missed the vast majority of occurrences. [2] 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. [3] (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. [4])
Kozuskanich is not a reliable source, having relied upon Bellesile's false claims. It would be the same as using the Hitler Diaries as a source, to use Kozuskanich. Out it goes. Yaf ( talk) 02:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Now I am mad. This attack on a bright young scholar is sleezy and stupid. First, there is no reference to Bellesiles in the article in question. Arming America is mentioned in another article and is not cited as authority, but rather is cited in the context of talking about the larger controversy over counting guns. Kozuskanich cites Bellesiles and all of his major critics. Clayton Cramer's blog is pure gun rights propaganda. His article in a right wing Federalist society journal could never have been published in a top law review. Here is what the Kozuskanich note from a Rutgers Law Review aricle said:
"We may never know exactly how many guns there were in colonial America, and this essay makes no effort to substantiate or dismiss the claims of Michael Bellesiles's controversial book. See generally MICHAEL A. BELLESILES, ARMING AMERICA: THE ORIGINS OF A NATIONAL GUN CULTURE (West 2003) (2000). Bellesiles argues that American gun culture began not with the frontier and the Revolution, but with industrialization which made firearms cheaper and readily available. See id. He bases his thesis on an examination of probate records, which he claims shows that gun ownership was the exception to the rule before the 1820s. See id. For more detailed studies of gun numbers that contradict Bellesiles, see James Lindgren & Justin L. Heather, Counting Guns in Early America, 43 WM. & MARY L. REV. 1777, 1819-35 (2002); see generally Randolph Roth, Guns, Gun Culture, and Homicide: The Relationship Between Firearms, the Use of Firearms, and Interpersonal Violence, 59 WM. & MARY Q. 223 (2002)."
This attack clearly discredits its author, who is nothing but a shill for the gun rights lobby who have attempted to take over this entry and hijack it for their ideological agenda. Removing the Kozuskanich evidence is simply unethical and only further discredits the gun rights trolls who live under this bridge. You have now totally discredited yourselves! Conlawgeek ( talk) 11:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Look Bellesiles work has been discredited.The Kozuskanich footnote does not defend or endorse Bellesiles, it merely points out his argument and cites all of the major critiques. Look the fact is Bellesiles should not be air brushed out of the picture-- it is important that people know what he did and that he was called to account and eventually lost his job. More to the point, this discussion of him was not even in the article which exposed the shoddy research used in the Cramer essay. Moreover, publishing in a Federalist Society journal-- which has a clear ideological agenda (the journal was ranked the 500th best in America!--seems pretty weak to me. This was not the Georgetown Law Journal.) Kozuskanich published in a top law journal-- ranked in the top 60. People complain about Joyce funding for the Chicago Kent symposium, but think it is ok for the right wing Federalist society to create an army of inferior journals to advance a conservative agenda. A clear example of double standards. Philo-Centinel ( talk) 21:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
It is worth noting that Yaf and Clayton Cramer are heavily biased in their smears and personal attacks aimed at Michael Bellesiles. In truth, Bellesiles made errors, (which human being hasn't?). Should the entire life work of every human being be discounted because they made errors? Worse, should anybody that associates with someone who made errors be considered 'bogus'? We know that Yaf says yes, everyone who has read Bellesiles, (or who knows Saul Cornell) should be considered 'bogus'. You may feel otherwise. In the interest of fairness, if anyone reading this talk page cares about fairness, editors may also want to read Michael Bellesiles side of the story [15].) SaltyBoatr ( talk) 15:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arming_America
Garry Wills, who had reviewed Arming America enthusiastically 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." [19] 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." [20]
Another current wiki article lists the following counts of misconduct against Bellesiles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_A._Bellesiles
Bellesiles misquoted sources or took quotes significantly out of context to support his theses. In one case, he quoted George Washington on the quality of the militias and misrepresented a Washington comment about three poorly prepared militia units as if it applied to the militia in general, even though Washington had noted that the three units were exceptions to the rule.[9] Bellesiles also modified texts of early gun laws to change their meanings. [10] 68.160.162.23 ( talk) 19:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Kozuskanich has nothing to do with Bellesiles. All the guy did was mention him in the same footnote that he mentions all of his serious academic critics. Cramer as a matter of fact was not one of those. It was Lindgren and Roth and the Emory Report that led to his being booted from Emory. The suggestion that Kozuskanich supported Bellesiles has no basis in fact. I agree that Bellesiles has no place in this article. Kozuskanich, by contrast, is a real scholar whose critique of Cramer shows pretty conclusively that the dominant understanding of bear arms had to do with military usage. Also, nobody ever claimed that the military usage was exclusive-- that is a gun rights mis-representation of the collective and civic rights models. Everyone accepts that this is the usage of the Pennsylvania Minority. The question is what weight do you give to the minority of a single state, particularly when its formulation was not used by any other state, writer, or the Congress that actually wrote the Amendment!
Conlawgeek (
talk)
12:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Once again, I think we are straying from a rigorous intellectual examination of the evidence. The fact that the right wing of the court adopted the individual rights view, does not mean that it is historically true, merely that the right wing of the court adopted the individual rights view. It does, however, mean that this is the legal meaning of the amendment until the people adopt a new amendment or we get a different court. (Frankly I don't think that a different court would mess much with Heller-- it would be counter productive and only energize the most radical wing of the gun rights movement.) We need to understand the difference between law and history. Also, if you look closely at the scholarship you will find that nobody in either the civic or collective rights camp ever said that everyone in America in 1788 believed that the amendment was only about the militia. The argument was always about what was the dominant view. Everyone who argued against the individual rights view always noted that one could find evidence such as the Dissent of the Pennsylvania Minority to support an individual right. As I noted above the issue is how do you weight such a text either as a matter of law or history?
Philo-Centinel (
talk)
13:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
While it is true that Stevens rejected the traditional collective rights view, his view was really the same as the limited individual rights view of Konig and Merkel, and Cornell's civic conception. The right belongs to individuals but is defined by the purpose stated in the preamble Philo-Centinel ( talk) 18:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, if you look at the work of either Richard Primus or Jack Rakove you would realize that the concept of collective or corporate rights was an uncontroversial concept in Anglo-American law. The most obvious example of a collective right would be the right of the people to legislate. Pennsylvania's Declaration of Rights talks about this right which obviously refers to the people in their collective capacity.
Philo-Centinel (
talk)
21:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
"Artcle 3 of the New Hampshire Bill of Rights makes this quite clear.
[Art.] 3. [Society, its Organization and Purposes.] When men enter into a state of society, they surrender up some of their natural rights to that society, in order to ensure the protection of others; and, without such an equivalent, the surrender is void. 68.162.247.11 ( talk) 22:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Regarding how extensive gun ownership was in the early day of the US, I would have to say it was pretty well universal. This is in response to the Bellesiles claim that gun ownership was rare. Not only was it not rare, gun ownership was REQUIRED of all able bodied males.
http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm
I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes. 68.160.162.23 ( talk) 16:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Trying to reach a consensus for this article is futile. How about we split the article? One part of the article would only contain arguments which editors like SaltyBoatr and Conlawgeek would find acceptable. Another part would only contain arguments which Yaf and the anon would find acceptable. While each part would be one-sided, the article as a whole would be balanced. This is better than the never ending screaming match we have now. SMP0328. ( talk) 18:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
inline What, I don't get no respect? Yaf ( talk) 19:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I removed the following material from the Early Commentary subsection of the Background section:
This passage has been used to support both an self-defensive and militia based interpretation of the Amendment. Indeed, Story was quoted by the majority opinion and the Dissent in Heller.
Those sentences lack sourcing. If sourcing is found for them, and there are no other reasons for exclusion, they can be restored to the article. SMP0328. ( talk) 21:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Denis Henigan, a pro-gun control advocate cites Story in his legal writings as does David Kopel, a pro-gun rights advocate.
In response to a complaint by Milnivlek over uncited material SaltyBoatr made the following cite referencing CHAPTER 5 PAGE 104
In the wake of Sanford Levinson's important Yale Law Journal article on the Second Amendment published in 1989 there was a flood of new scholarship on the Second Amendment. Much of this scholarship was published by pro-gun rights advocates, but a number of serious academics also entered the debate. By 1999 the weight of scholarship had appeared to shift toward an individual rights interpretation. [1]
That is a problem as this book has no chapters and the reference to the nonexistent Chapter 5 needs to go. The book is a compilation of articles by various authors.
Actual text from page 104 reads
Levinson's article spurred other scholars in law, history and political science to take up the issue with such lading scholars as Akhil Amar, Saul Cornell, Leonard Levy, Jack Ravoke, Lawrence Tribe, William Van Alstyne and Gary Wills among many others.
This is substantially different from what is currently in the article which currently belittles pro gun right authors. The article needs to be changed to get rid of the bias of whoever added that section and to better reflect the actual page 104 statement.
To SaltyBoatrs credit he did remove the hazy statement
If one actually looked closely at the scholarship and discounted multiple articles by the same author the balance was only slightly in favor of the individual rights view. 68.163.98.56 ( talk) 21:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=270330711&oldid=270329936 68.163.98.56 ( talk) 22:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
The following, which is what is currently in the article
Much of this scholarship was published by pro-gun rights advocates, but a number of serious academics also entered the debate.
bears minimal relation to this,which is is a direct quote from the book.
Levinson's article spurred other scholars in law, history and political science to take up the issue with such lading scholars as Akhil Amar, Saul Cornell, Leonard Levy, Jack Ravoke, Lawrence Tribe, William Van Alstyne and Gary Wills among many others.
and this, while probably true, should probably be deleted as excess flab.
By 1999 the weight of scholarship had appeared to shift toward an individual rights interpretation.
and again there is NO Chapter 5. The book does NOT HAVE CHAPTERS. 68.163.98.56 ( talk) 19:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
That's the problem here. Did Heller affect only individual-type weapons? Aren't gunners in Army rifle squads issued .45 pistols, for up-close defense? Don't all military officers carry such side-arms? Isn't it a violation of the Military Code (in a war zone) for such soldiers to be without their pistols? Did Heller do away with collective-right weapons? In the so-called collective-right era, didn't the NFA of 1934 effectively outlaw possession of short-barreled shotguns - when such weapons were general issue to foot soldiers in WWI (for close-up trench warfare)? Did U.S. v. Miller destroy the collective-right? C'mon, the collective-right has always been there, regardless of federal legislation. Did Heller destroy the collective right? Of course not. The military may have whatever weapons they need. Did Heller discover a new individual right? Of course not. There are more guns in American households than pets. The question isn't whether the two rights should be equally represented, here, the federal government has infringed on both. The subject, here, isn't about rights,it's about federal infringement. ( Truwik ( talk) 13:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC))
Apparently, we are misunderstanding each other. I was saying negatively, that Heller did not invent the individual right - because it already existed from our beginnings. Whether individuals were associated with a militia or not, they had (and have) the right to arms. Nothing has changed that, but the degree to which the right may be regulated by government. Starting with the NFA of 1934, Congress viewed the Second Amendment as only prohibiting infringement on militia-type weapons (even though that law did infringe on military weapons). That became known as the 'collective right' point of view, however, even though infringed on a little, the individual-right still co-existed with it. That collective-right POV is deemed by some editors as meaning only the military should have weapons - such as Mr. Justice Stevens indicated in Heller - hence the confusion. All Americans have the right to some degree, depending on the State or federal territory one lives in. ( Truwik ( talk) 17:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC))
The 4 footnotes attached to Heller immediately directing viewer's attentiion to comments about the case, before they have read it, is misleading. The first says "for the first time...the Second Amendment protects an individual right..." without saying it protects the right, only from federal infringement. The next says this "will challenge gun restrictions in cities and suburbs across the nation" which attempts to extend the Court's D.C. decision throughout the states. Then, "Individual Americans have a right to own guns" as though they never had the right before Heller. And the fourth, that the Court embraced the view that "there is a constitutional right to keep a loaded handgun at home for self-defense" which millions of Americans had been doing for decades. Those footnotes must be removed completely or be placed elsewhere. I will add the pertinent Heller quotes that clearly state the decision applied exclusively to the District of Columbia. The individual-right existed throughout the U.S. from our beginnings, there is no evidence that after Heller Americans squealed for joy and made a bee-line for gun shops. If that decision proved anything, it's that federal law (or ordinances under their jurisdiction - such as D.C.), now, may not infringe on individual-type weapons, as was done in the past. It did not discover a new right, it clamped down on infringement by citizens of the United States, on their fellow-citizens, and, inferentially, on future federal laws. ( Truwik ( talk) 21:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC))
(That third footnote is even a misquote. It reads: "Americans have right to guns..." ( Truwik ( talk))
You are invited to vote for the proposed changes to the lede. 68.163.98.56 ( talk) 21:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The Heller decision only has effect in the District of Columbia: "In sum, we hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment" (p. 64, opinion), and that's all that it means. Overturning a D.C. law only affects citizens who live there, a neutral position of Heller simply means accepting that. True, the Heller Court exposed the false reasoning, by the Court, in U.S. v. Miller but it did not overrule Miller. ( Truwik ( talk) 14:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC))
All those in favor of adding pertinent quotes to the Heller case, say 'aye'. ( Truwik ( talk) 17:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC))
As the OED makes clear well regulated could mean well trained and disciplined or brought under legal control-- Have added material on Articles of Confederation to show that the argument that it always meant disciplined is simply wrong. Like bear arms this term is contested in the scholarship Philo-Centinel ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC).
and i've again reverted your addition on the following basis:
you may wish to read up on wikipedia's core values and policies (click 'help' in the sidebar on the left). your edits appear well-intentioned, but are sorely lacking in conformance to the standard practices for editing. if we were editing I Love Lucy or some other trivial topic, the demand for conformance to standards would be less rigorous. this is not a trivial topic. Anastrophe ( talk) 17:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I fail to see how the OED, which is the standard reference tool for understanding the history of the language, could be interpreted as pushing a point of view. What we have here is an effort by gun rights advocates and individual rights theorists to do an end run around the obvious meaning of the term by claiming that it was the archaic usage, not the obvious usage that was intended by congress. Such a view is not really consistent with the Blackstonian rules of legal construction that the Founders endorsed. If one looks at the whole text of Federalist 29, and not just the excerpt, I think it supports the orthodox, not archaic meaning. Moreover, the Articles of Confederation discussion of a well regulated militia demonstrates that it can't be disciplined since that would make that provision of the articles read keep up a well disciplined and well disciplined militia. I appreciate that Wiki has its conventions, and I would concede I am not a maven on them, frankly I don't have the time to learn another set of rules, keeping up with the Blue Book takes enough time as it is, but this is supposed to be a group effort. Reverting things immediately, before people have time to read something and react strikes me as not in keeping with the true spirit of what a wiki is supposed to accomplish-- but that is just one person's opinion Philo-Centinel ( talk) 22:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
These change are also perverting and bastardizing well cited material, to meanings not supported by the citations.
For instance the Cruikshank change from
the federal government may not punish individuals for depriving citizens of their right to bear arms.
to
that the Second Amendment was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens.
Is not supported by anything in Cruikshnak. 141.154.76.26 ( talk) 12:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
The online Oxford dictionary has 8 entries with the word "regulated" and no entries for the phrase "well regulated" or well-regulated".
accident - PHRASES - accidents will happen in the best regulated families
atomic clock • noun an extremely accurate type of clock which is regulated by the vibrations of an atomic or molecular system such as caesium.
control - 4 a device by which a machine is regulated.
fly-by-wire • adjective a semi-automatic, computer-regulated system for controlling an aircraft or spacecraft.
heraldry • noun 1 the system by which coats of arms and other armorial bearings are devised, described, and regulated
quartz clock (or watch) • noun a clock (or watch) regulated by vibrations of an electrically driven quartz crystal.
regulation - 3 the action or process of regulating or being regulated.
socialism • noun a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
It seems that the word "regulated" continues to have uses outside of government "regulation". 141.154.76.26 ( talk) 15:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
AskOxford: Free online dictionary resources from Oxford University
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Oxford+dictionary&btnG=Search&cts=1239037103755 141.154.76.26 ( talk) 17:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Yaf's wholesale revert [23] defies logic. Yaf's passage is not sourced in the cited book, and appears to be largely WP:OR. The version he reverted out matches the reliable book source closely. Also Yaf reverted the misquoted "quotation" from the Cruikshank ruling back into the article and took out the verbatim court quotation, why? We can only guess. Yaf please explain. SaltyBoatr ( talk) 16:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
While his normal level of obstructionism is horrible, today he surpassed even his own low standards
Per the above he now contests that the Second Amendment has not been incorporated through the 14th Amendment
and contests a VERBATUM reproduction of Supreme Court opinion as "dubious". 141.154.76.26 ( talk) 16:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "Bearing arms for lawful purposes." 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. 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
http://supreme.justia.com/us/92/542/case.html
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. 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 The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 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. 141.154.76.26 ( talk) 17:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Yaf reverted again [25], with zero participation in discussion on the talk page. This appears to be long term edit war pattern in this article, in violation of WP:3RR policy. Notice that Yaf reverted back in the erroneous quotation of from the court case, including the punctuation and capitalization typographical errors, and including truncation. Also Yaf reverted back to a first paragraph version of the section that is entirely unsourced. SaltyBoatr ( talk) 20:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Since I can't seem to get enough interest in getting rid of all the Cornell references based on the fact that he is a biased "mouthpiece" in the pay of a gun control group I will go about it quote by quote.
Next on the list
In 1905, the Kansas Supreme Court in Salina v. Blaksley[87] made a collective right judicial interpretation modeled on Cruikshank.[88] The Kansas high court declared: "That the provision in question applies only to the right to bear arms as a member of the state militia, or some other military organization provided for by law, is also apparent from the second amendment to the federal Constitution, which says: '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.'"
Anyone reading Cruikshank will notice that Cruikshank DID NOT make a collective rights interpretation. Cornell's goal here seems to be to insinuate that the collective right theory existed much earlier then it in fact did.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/92/542/case.html
The word collective appears twice in Cruikshank
1. Citizens are the members of the political community to which they belong. They are the people who compose the community, and who, in their associated capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual, as well as their collective, rights. The duty of a government to afford protection is limited always by the power it possesses for that purpose.
Citizens are the members of the political community to which they belong. They are the people who compose the community, and who, in their associated capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as their collective rights. In the formation of a government, the people may confer upon it such powers as they choose. The government, when so formed, may, and when called upon should, exercise all the powers it has for the protection of the rights of its citizens and the people within its jurisdiction, but it can exercise no other. The duty of a government to afford protection is limited always by the power it possesses for that purpose.
The word "militia" does not appear at all in Cruikshank.
Unless someone can come up with a valid objection I will delete the bold portion above as inaccurate personal opinion.
68.160.141.242 (
talk)
21:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
scholarly study of the Second Amendment-- Philo-Centinel ( talk) 15:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
As the word militia does not appear at all in Cruikshank, it can without a single grain of doubt be determined that Cruikshank DID NOT made a collective right judicial interpretation that the right to keep and bear arms was applicable only within the context of a militia.
Courts and scholars clearly did construe Cruikshank as a collective rights decision for more than a hundred years Philo-Centinel ( talk) 15:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Meaning of English Declaration of Rights disputed by scholars and Heller The meaning of the English Declaration of Rights is a core example of how the same text has been read by different scholars in this debate to support both an individual right and a civic or collective right. If you compare the historians brief in Heller with Joyce Lee Malcolm's brief you can get a sense of the radically different interpretations. Can we start being a little honest and recognize that this issue is complex and that there are legitimate differences of opinion without once again turning to conspiracy theories about the Joyce Foundation Philo-Centinel ( talk) 15:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I would have thought the reference to Heller would have been enough authority, but I am happy to oblige with additional sources. The limited view of the Declaration of Rights provision on arms may be found in Lois Schworer's essay in The Second Amendment in Law and History or David Konig's essay on the Transatlantic Context of the Second Amendment in Law and History Review. The gun rights view may be found in Joyce Malcolm's, To Keep and Bear Arms Philo-Centinel ( talk) 20:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
BTW: The Second Amendment in Law and History was edited by Carl Bogus, well known Joyce Foundation mouthpiece, while Konig's article does not mention Cruikshank. PLEASE try to say on topic. This is about whether Cruikshank made a "militia based" interpretation of the Second Amendment. 141.154.12.116 ( talk) 21:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
141.154.12.116 ( talk) 12:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Cruikshank's "protection of their individual, as well as their collective, rights" simply recognized that individual and collective rights co-existed, and both are protected from federal infringement by the Second Amendment. Individuals and militiamen have always had the right to arms from our beginnings. The suggestion that, after Cruikshank, only collective military men had the right, flies in the face of our history. That individuals in every State of the union have firearms, is an historical fact. ( Truwik ( talk) 14:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC))
I'm agreeing with that. The Court, in passing, just acknowledged that both 'collective' and 'individual' rights existed. The Court's "protection of their...rights" referred to protection from federal infringement - as the Court clearly stated at page 553. The Court held that the Second Amendment did not protect Mr. Cruikshank's individual right - or anybody else's right within a State - because the right is not dependent on the U.S. Constitution for its existence. (That is, the right is inherited from our ancestors.) The Court said, only Congress can violate the 2A, and Mr. Cruikshank would have to look to his State (Louisiana) for protection. Since the Court did not protect an individual's right, gun-grabbers assumed Cruikshank supported only the collective right. This is nonsense and, in this editor's opinion, could well be "Defrauding the United States," which is a felony. It's saying: Thus sayeth the Court, when the Court didn't thus sayeth. Thus, "modeled on Cruikshank" must go. ( Truwik ( talk) 14:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC))
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 25 |
RE:Your complaint on unsourced/unsupported opinion - as follows
In the wake of Sanford Levinson's important Yale Law Journal article on the Second Amendment published in 1989 there was a flood of new scholarship on the Second Amendment. Much of this scholarship was published by pro-gun rights advocates, but a number of serious academics also entered the debate. By 1999 the weight of scholarship had appeared to shift toward an individual rights interpretation.[citation needed] If one actually looked closely at the scholarship and discounted multiple articles by the same author the balance was only slightly in favor of the individual rights view.[citation needed]
I agree that the above needs referencing and that some sort of reasonable time period should be set for anyone wanting that material in the article to find sourcing. I believe that either 1 or 2 weeks should be sufficient time for anyone wanting to keep the material to find some sort of backup. If nobody bothers to get sourcing by the end of that time period the material should be deleted as nobody finds it worth defending.
Do you vote for a 1 week, 2 week period or would you prefer another reasonable time frame? 68.163.98.56 ( talk) 15:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
6. The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government.
Toss is a quote or two from Heller that it protects an individual right and be done with it. 68.163.98.56 ( talk) 16:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
From the Stevens dissent
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. 68.163.98.56 ( talk) 16:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
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. 68.163.98.56 ( talk) 18:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
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. 68.163.98.56 ( talk) 21:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Dick Heller applied for a registration certificate for a handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He filed a lawsuit in the federal district court seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on the registration of handguns. The District Court dismissed the complaint. The Court of Appeals reversed, and held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms and that the city's ban on handguns violated that right, and directed the District Court to enter summary judgment for Heller. The Supreme Court said: We hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment. We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
SaltyBoatr is right, how could anyone understand that? We do have a clue though, Heller is described as a 'landmark' decision, wherein (for the first time in its history) the U.S. Supreme Court held a law violative of the Second Amendment. And at page 53, opinion, it said: We conclude that nothing in our precedents forecloses our adoption of the original understanding of the Second Amendment. It's a mystery, but maybe if we all got our heads together... ( Truwik ( talk) 13:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC))
Salty Boatr just added a statement that
Since Heller, over eighty lawsuits related to firearms legislation have been decided in federal court.
With the source being a newspaper. I am asking for a more verifiable source for 80 cases settled, such as a listing of court cases. After being told by newspapers for the past 2 years that the housing market has hit bottom, that the stock market has hit bottom, and that there will be no recession, never mind a depression, I am quite leery of newspaper claims to anything. Failure to provide a more verifiable source will be a "foisting" of unverifiable material. 141.154.11.202 ( talk) 21:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
http://newledger.com/2009/03/gun-rights-and-the-constitution-was-heller-insignificant/
Let’s start with the most obvious facts which the Times overlooked. On the day that Heller was decided, the citizens of five Chicago suburbs, and of Chicago itself, were prohibited from owning guns. Residents of apartments provided by the San Francisco Housing Authority were prohibited from owning any gun. Within 24 hours of the Heller decision, gun rights organizations—including the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF)—filed lawsuits against the gun bans.
Today, the residents of San Francisco public housing can own guns in their homes. In four of the five Chicago suburbs (Morton Grove, Evanston, Wilmette, and Winnetka), the handgun bans have been repealed. Yet according to the Times, “So far, Heller is firing blanks.”
BTW:I'm still waiting for that listing of 40 out of 80 cases
68.160.162.23 (
talk)
14:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
The: "This dispute over the scope of this right was discussed in District of Columbia v. Heller", here, is flat wrong. The Heller Court said "a prefatory clause [militia] does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause [infringement]". This had nothing whatsoever to do with the 'scope of this right.' Even if it did, it shouldn't be under 'English Common Law.' This is a classic example of twisting words to agree with one's agenda. ( Truwik ( talk) 17:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC))
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. 68.160.162.23 ( talk) 19:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
The link provided to show that they exist (aka the citation), goes to an abstract of an article which mentions none of these court cases. The article itself can be downloaded and a check of that shows these cases are not discussed but are merely mentioned in the footnotes. I therefore find the citation lacking. While I am not asking that they be removed, I do ask that a better citation be provided.
An example of an acceptable citation would be the following link to US v Artez
http://openjurist.org/389/f3d/1106/united-states-v-artez 68.160.162.23 ( talk) 22:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1359225 68.160.162.23 ( talk) 00:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
(outdent)so, based upon "yes", you're saying that even if notability were established in reliable sourcing, you would suggest that mention of them must be excluded from the article. interesting. my question was procedural, your followup questions were based on a literal reading that overlooked the word "if". so, i have no questions to answer. i still await an answer to my second question, to wit, "i fail to see how an out of court settlement constitutes a "red-herring". can you explain? ". Anastrophe ( talk) 15:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The focus on Spooner makes it seem like he was a mainstream theorist when he was clearly a radical abolitionist who thought slaves had a 2nd Amendment right of revolution-- sort of in the John Brown camp-- important to be sure, influential perhaps, but certainly not typical.
Story is, however, very important, and was cited in Heller and has been claimed by all sides in this debate. Conlawgeek ( talk) 13:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Funny how whenever we try to discuss law or history we always come back to these ideological issues. Do you seriously think a slave could waltz into court claim a Second Amendment right to use a gun to kill his master? Is our goal here to write something useful or turn this into another gun rights chat room?
Conlawgeek (
talk)
14:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
As I might have predicted we are back to gun rights conspiracy theories. Anyone with any law review experience, something that several of the people writing here clearly don't have, would tell you that law review editors jealously retain control of editorial content. I pulled the Fordham and Stanford issues and Cornell did not edit anything-- he wrote an article for each issue. I also did some research and found out that Joyce Lee Malcolm one of the scholars gun rights scholars love to quote took almost fifty thousand from the right wing Earhart foundation. Scholars need money to do research-- I care less about the money and more about the content. I am glad someone has mentioned civic republianism-- the Yale Law Journal devoted an entire issue to this about twenty years ago. The Second Amendment clearly grows out of the English fear of standing armies it was part of the civic republican tradition. The right of self defense was part of the common law tradition. The two are historically different. Conlawgeek ( talk) 21:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Joyce-Foundation Stanford Law and Policy Review (Vol. 17:3, Spring 2006, editorial contributions by Saul Cornell) 68.160.162.23 ( talk) 16:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
For the record: Disputing removal of well cited material from one of one of the top legal writers of the mid-1800's after a hack making Spooner sound like a wild eyed loonie.
68.160.162.23 (
talk)
18:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the following material for being unsourced:
Thus, Nathan Kozuskanich, writing in the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law surveyed the use of the term in all published sources from the period and found that a military meaning was dominant in over 95% of the occurrences. citation needed Moreover, Kozuskanich found that Cramer and Olson had understated the number of uses and missed the vast majority of occurrences. citation needed
If proper sourcing is added, it can be restored to the article. SMP0328. ( talk) 00:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
SaltyBoatr and I have removed the following as there are major problems here:
In contrast, Nathan Kozuskanich, a protege of Saul Cornell, [1] writing in the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law surveyed the use of the term in all published sources from the period and writes that a military meaning was dominant in over 95% of the occurrences. Moreover, Kozuskanich writes that Cramer and Olson had understated the number of uses and missed the vast majority of occurrences. [2] 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. [3] (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. [4])
Kozuskanich is not a reliable source, having relied upon Bellesile's false claims. It would be the same as using the Hitler Diaries as a source, to use Kozuskanich. Out it goes. Yaf ( talk) 02:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Now I am mad. This attack on a bright young scholar is sleezy and stupid. First, there is no reference to Bellesiles in the article in question. Arming America is mentioned in another article and is not cited as authority, but rather is cited in the context of talking about the larger controversy over counting guns. Kozuskanich cites Bellesiles and all of his major critics. Clayton Cramer's blog is pure gun rights propaganda. His article in a right wing Federalist society journal could never have been published in a top law review. Here is what the Kozuskanich note from a Rutgers Law Review aricle said:
"We may never know exactly how many guns there were in colonial America, and this essay makes no effort to substantiate or dismiss the claims of Michael Bellesiles's controversial book. See generally MICHAEL A. BELLESILES, ARMING AMERICA: THE ORIGINS OF A NATIONAL GUN CULTURE (West 2003) (2000). Bellesiles argues that American gun culture began not with the frontier and the Revolution, but with industrialization which made firearms cheaper and readily available. See id. He bases his thesis on an examination of probate records, which he claims shows that gun ownership was the exception to the rule before the 1820s. See id. For more detailed studies of gun numbers that contradict Bellesiles, see James Lindgren & Justin L. Heather, Counting Guns in Early America, 43 WM. & MARY L. REV. 1777, 1819-35 (2002); see generally Randolph Roth, Guns, Gun Culture, and Homicide: The Relationship Between Firearms, the Use of Firearms, and Interpersonal Violence, 59 WM. & MARY Q. 223 (2002)."
This attack clearly discredits its author, who is nothing but a shill for the gun rights lobby who have attempted to take over this entry and hijack it for their ideological agenda. Removing the Kozuskanich evidence is simply unethical and only further discredits the gun rights trolls who live under this bridge. You have now totally discredited yourselves! Conlawgeek ( talk) 11:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Look Bellesiles work has been discredited.The Kozuskanich footnote does not defend or endorse Bellesiles, it merely points out his argument and cites all of the major critiques. Look the fact is Bellesiles should not be air brushed out of the picture-- it is important that people know what he did and that he was called to account and eventually lost his job. More to the point, this discussion of him was not even in the article which exposed the shoddy research used in the Cramer essay. Moreover, publishing in a Federalist Society journal-- which has a clear ideological agenda (the journal was ranked the 500th best in America!--seems pretty weak to me. This was not the Georgetown Law Journal.) Kozuskanich published in a top law journal-- ranked in the top 60. People complain about Joyce funding for the Chicago Kent symposium, but think it is ok for the right wing Federalist society to create an army of inferior journals to advance a conservative agenda. A clear example of double standards. Philo-Centinel ( talk) 21:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
It is worth noting that Yaf and Clayton Cramer are heavily biased in their smears and personal attacks aimed at Michael Bellesiles. In truth, Bellesiles made errors, (which human being hasn't?). Should the entire life work of every human being be discounted because they made errors? Worse, should anybody that associates with someone who made errors be considered 'bogus'? We know that Yaf says yes, everyone who has read Bellesiles, (or who knows Saul Cornell) should be considered 'bogus'. You may feel otherwise. In the interest of fairness, if anyone reading this talk page cares about fairness, editors may also want to read Michael Bellesiles side of the story [15].) SaltyBoatr ( talk) 15:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arming_America
Garry Wills, who had reviewed Arming America enthusiastically 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." [19] 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." [20]
Another current wiki article lists the following counts of misconduct against Bellesiles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_A._Bellesiles
Bellesiles misquoted sources or took quotes significantly out of context to support his theses. In one case, he quoted George Washington on the quality of the militias and misrepresented a Washington comment about three poorly prepared militia units as if it applied to the militia in general, even though Washington had noted that the three units were exceptions to the rule.[9] Bellesiles also modified texts of early gun laws to change their meanings. [10] 68.160.162.23 ( talk) 19:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Kozuskanich has nothing to do with Bellesiles. All the guy did was mention him in the same footnote that he mentions all of his serious academic critics. Cramer as a matter of fact was not one of those. It was Lindgren and Roth and the Emory Report that led to his being booted from Emory. The suggestion that Kozuskanich supported Bellesiles has no basis in fact. I agree that Bellesiles has no place in this article. Kozuskanich, by contrast, is a real scholar whose critique of Cramer shows pretty conclusively that the dominant understanding of bear arms had to do with military usage. Also, nobody ever claimed that the military usage was exclusive-- that is a gun rights mis-representation of the collective and civic rights models. Everyone accepts that this is the usage of the Pennsylvania Minority. The question is what weight do you give to the minority of a single state, particularly when its formulation was not used by any other state, writer, or the Congress that actually wrote the Amendment!
Conlawgeek (
talk)
12:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Once again, I think we are straying from a rigorous intellectual examination of the evidence. The fact that the right wing of the court adopted the individual rights view, does not mean that it is historically true, merely that the right wing of the court adopted the individual rights view. It does, however, mean that this is the legal meaning of the amendment until the people adopt a new amendment or we get a different court. (Frankly I don't think that a different court would mess much with Heller-- it would be counter productive and only energize the most radical wing of the gun rights movement.) We need to understand the difference between law and history. Also, if you look closely at the scholarship you will find that nobody in either the civic or collective rights camp ever said that everyone in America in 1788 believed that the amendment was only about the militia. The argument was always about what was the dominant view. Everyone who argued against the individual rights view always noted that one could find evidence such as the Dissent of the Pennsylvania Minority to support an individual right. As I noted above the issue is how do you weight such a text either as a matter of law or history?
Philo-Centinel (
talk)
13:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
While it is true that Stevens rejected the traditional collective rights view, his view was really the same as the limited individual rights view of Konig and Merkel, and Cornell's civic conception. The right belongs to individuals but is defined by the purpose stated in the preamble Philo-Centinel ( talk) 18:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, if you look at the work of either Richard Primus or Jack Rakove you would realize that the concept of collective or corporate rights was an uncontroversial concept in Anglo-American law. The most obvious example of a collective right would be the right of the people to legislate. Pennsylvania's Declaration of Rights talks about this right which obviously refers to the people in their collective capacity.
Philo-Centinel (
talk)
21:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
"Artcle 3 of the New Hampshire Bill of Rights makes this quite clear.
[Art.] 3. [Society, its Organization and Purposes.] When men enter into a state of society, they surrender up some of their natural rights to that society, in order to ensure the protection of others; and, without such an equivalent, the surrender is void. 68.162.247.11 ( talk) 22:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Regarding how extensive gun ownership was in the early day of the US, I would have to say it was pretty well universal. This is in response to the Bellesiles claim that gun ownership was rare. Not only was it not rare, gun ownership was REQUIRED of all able bodied males.
http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm
I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes. 68.160.162.23 ( talk) 16:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Trying to reach a consensus for this article is futile. How about we split the article? One part of the article would only contain arguments which editors like SaltyBoatr and Conlawgeek would find acceptable. Another part would only contain arguments which Yaf and the anon would find acceptable. While each part would be one-sided, the article as a whole would be balanced. This is better than the never ending screaming match we have now. SMP0328. ( talk) 18:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
inline What, I don't get no respect? Yaf ( talk) 19:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I removed the following material from the Early Commentary subsection of the Background section:
This passage has been used to support both an self-defensive and militia based interpretation of the Amendment. Indeed, Story was quoted by the majority opinion and the Dissent in Heller.
Those sentences lack sourcing. If sourcing is found for them, and there are no other reasons for exclusion, they can be restored to the article. SMP0328. ( talk) 21:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Denis Henigan, a pro-gun control advocate cites Story in his legal writings as does David Kopel, a pro-gun rights advocate.
In response to a complaint by Milnivlek over uncited material SaltyBoatr made the following cite referencing CHAPTER 5 PAGE 104
In the wake of Sanford Levinson's important Yale Law Journal article on the Second Amendment published in 1989 there was a flood of new scholarship on the Second Amendment. Much of this scholarship was published by pro-gun rights advocates, but a number of serious academics also entered the debate. By 1999 the weight of scholarship had appeared to shift toward an individual rights interpretation. [1]
That is a problem as this book has no chapters and the reference to the nonexistent Chapter 5 needs to go. The book is a compilation of articles by various authors.
Actual text from page 104 reads
Levinson's article spurred other scholars in law, history and political science to take up the issue with such lading scholars as Akhil Amar, Saul Cornell, Leonard Levy, Jack Ravoke, Lawrence Tribe, William Van Alstyne and Gary Wills among many others.
This is substantially different from what is currently in the article which currently belittles pro gun right authors. The article needs to be changed to get rid of the bias of whoever added that section and to better reflect the actual page 104 statement.
To SaltyBoatrs credit he did remove the hazy statement
If one actually looked closely at the scholarship and discounted multiple articles by the same author the balance was only slightly in favor of the individual rights view. 68.163.98.56 ( talk) 21:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=270330711&oldid=270329936 68.163.98.56 ( talk) 22:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
The following, which is what is currently in the article
Much of this scholarship was published by pro-gun rights advocates, but a number of serious academics also entered the debate.
bears minimal relation to this,which is is a direct quote from the book.
Levinson's article spurred other scholars in law, history and political science to take up the issue with such lading scholars as Akhil Amar, Saul Cornell, Leonard Levy, Jack Ravoke, Lawrence Tribe, William Van Alstyne and Gary Wills among many others.
and this, while probably true, should probably be deleted as excess flab.
By 1999 the weight of scholarship had appeared to shift toward an individual rights interpretation.
and again there is NO Chapter 5. The book does NOT HAVE CHAPTERS. 68.163.98.56 ( talk) 19:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
That's the problem here. Did Heller affect only individual-type weapons? Aren't gunners in Army rifle squads issued .45 pistols, for up-close defense? Don't all military officers carry such side-arms? Isn't it a violation of the Military Code (in a war zone) for such soldiers to be without their pistols? Did Heller do away with collective-right weapons? In the so-called collective-right era, didn't the NFA of 1934 effectively outlaw possession of short-barreled shotguns - when such weapons were general issue to foot soldiers in WWI (for close-up trench warfare)? Did U.S. v. Miller destroy the collective-right? C'mon, the collective-right has always been there, regardless of federal legislation. Did Heller destroy the collective right? Of course not. The military may have whatever weapons they need. Did Heller discover a new individual right? Of course not. There are more guns in American households than pets. The question isn't whether the two rights should be equally represented, here, the federal government has infringed on both. The subject, here, isn't about rights,it's about federal infringement. ( Truwik ( talk) 13:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC))
Apparently, we are misunderstanding each other. I was saying negatively, that Heller did not invent the individual right - because it already existed from our beginnings. Whether individuals were associated with a militia or not, they had (and have) the right to arms. Nothing has changed that, but the degree to which the right may be regulated by government. Starting with the NFA of 1934, Congress viewed the Second Amendment as only prohibiting infringement on militia-type weapons (even though that law did infringe on military weapons). That became known as the 'collective right' point of view, however, even though infringed on a little, the individual-right still co-existed with it. That collective-right POV is deemed by some editors as meaning only the military should have weapons - such as Mr. Justice Stevens indicated in Heller - hence the confusion. All Americans have the right to some degree, depending on the State or federal territory one lives in. ( Truwik ( talk) 17:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC))
The 4 footnotes attached to Heller immediately directing viewer's attentiion to comments about the case, before they have read it, is misleading. The first says "for the first time...the Second Amendment protects an individual right..." without saying it protects the right, only from federal infringement. The next says this "will challenge gun restrictions in cities and suburbs across the nation" which attempts to extend the Court's D.C. decision throughout the states. Then, "Individual Americans have a right to own guns" as though they never had the right before Heller. And the fourth, that the Court embraced the view that "there is a constitutional right to keep a loaded handgun at home for self-defense" which millions of Americans had been doing for decades. Those footnotes must be removed completely or be placed elsewhere. I will add the pertinent Heller quotes that clearly state the decision applied exclusively to the District of Columbia. The individual-right existed throughout the U.S. from our beginnings, there is no evidence that after Heller Americans squealed for joy and made a bee-line for gun shops. If that decision proved anything, it's that federal law (or ordinances under their jurisdiction - such as D.C.), now, may not infringe on individual-type weapons, as was done in the past. It did not discover a new right, it clamped down on infringement by citizens of the United States, on their fellow-citizens, and, inferentially, on future federal laws. ( Truwik ( talk) 21:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC))
(That third footnote is even a misquote. It reads: "Americans have right to guns..." ( Truwik ( talk))
You are invited to vote for the proposed changes to the lede. 68.163.98.56 ( talk) 21:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The Heller decision only has effect in the District of Columbia: "In sum, we hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment" (p. 64, opinion), and that's all that it means. Overturning a D.C. law only affects citizens who live there, a neutral position of Heller simply means accepting that. True, the Heller Court exposed the false reasoning, by the Court, in U.S. v. Miller but it did not overrule Miller. ( Truwik ( talk) 14:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC))
All those in favor of adding pertinent quotes to the Heller case, say 'aye'. ( Truwik ( talk) 17:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC))
As the OED makes clear well regulated could mean well trained and disciplined or brought under legal control-- Have added material on Articles of Confederation to show that the argument that it always meant disciplined is simply wrong. Like bear arms this term is contested in the scholarship Philo-Centinel ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC).
and i've again reverted your addition on the following basis:
you may wish to read up on wikipedia's core values and policies (click 'help' in the sidebar on the left). your edits appear well-intentioned, but are sorely lacking in conformance to the standard practices for editing. if we were editing I Love Lucy or some other trivial topic, the demand for conformance to standards would be less rigorous. this is not a trivial topic. Anastrophe ( talk) 17:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I fail to see how the OED, which is the standard reference tool for understanding the history of the language, could be interpreted as pushing a point of view. What we have here is an effort by gun rights advocates and individual rights theorists to do an end run around the obvious meaning of the term by claiming that it was the archaic usage, not the obvious usage that was intended by congress. Such a view is not really consistent with the Blackstonian rules of legal construction that the Founders endorsed. If one looks at the whole text of Federalist 29, and not just the excerpt, I think it supports the orthodox, not archaic meaning. Moreover, the Articles of Confederation discussion of a well regulated militia demonstrates that it can't be disciplined since that would make that provision of the articles read keep up a well disciplined and well disciplined militia. I appreciate that Wiki has its conventions, and I would concede I am not a maven on them, frankly I don't have the time to learn another set of rules, keeping up with the Blue Book takes enough time as it is, but this is supposed to be a group effort. Reverting things immediately, before people have time to read something and react strikes me as not in keeping with the true spirit of what a wiki is supposed to accomplish-- but that is just one person's opinion Philo-Centinel ( talk) 22:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
These change are also perverting and bastardizing well cited material, to meanings not supported by the citations.
For instance the Cruikshank change from
the federal government may not punish individuals for depriving citizens of their right to bear arms.
to
that the Second Amendment was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens.
Is not supported by anything in Cruikshnak. 141.154.76.26 ( talk) 12:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
The online Oxford dictionary has 8 entries with the word "regulated" and no entries for the phrase "well regulated" or well-regulated".
accident - PHRASES - accidents will happen in the best regulated families
atomic clock • noun an extremely accurate type of clock which is regulated by the vibrations of an atomic or molecular system such as caesium.
control - 4 a device by which a machine is regulated.
fly-by-wire • adjective a semi-automatic, computer-regulated system for controlling an aircraft or spacecraft.
heraldry • noun 1 the system by which coats of arms and other armorial bearings are devised, described, and regulated
quartz clock (or watch) • noun a clock (or watch) regulated by vibrations of an electrically driven quartz crystal.
regulation - 3 the action or process of regulating or being regulated.
socialism • noun a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
It seems that the word "regulated" continues to have uses outside of government "regulation". 141.154.76.26 ( talk) 15:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
AskOxford: Free online dictionary resources from Oxford University
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Oxford+dictionary&btnG=Search&cts=1239037103755 141.154.76.26 ( talk) 17:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Yaf's wholesale revert [23] defies logic. Yaf's passage is not sourced in the cited book, and appears to be largely WP:OR. The version he reverted out matches the reliable book source closely. Also Yaf reverted the misquoted "quotation" from the Cruikshank ruling back into the article and took out the verbatim court quotation, why? We can only guess. Yaf please explain. SaltyBoatr ( talk) 16:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
While his normal level of obstructionism is horrible, today he surpassed even his own low standards
Per the above he now contests that the Second Amendment has not been incorporated through the 14th Amendment
and contests a VERBATUM reproduction of Supreme Court opinion as "dubious". 141.154.76.26 ( talk) 16:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "Bearing arms for lawful purposes." 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. 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
http://supreme.justia.com/us/92/542/case.html
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. 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 The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 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. 141.154.76.26 ( talk) 17:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Yaf reverted again [25], with zero participation in discussion on the talk page. This appears to be long term edit war pattern in this article, in violation of WP:3RR policy. Notice that Yaf reverted back in the erroneous quotation of from the court case, including the punctuation and capitalization typographical errors, and including truncation. Also Yaf reverted back to a first paragraph version of the section that is entirely unsourced. SaltyBoatr ( talk) 20:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Since I can't seem to get enough interest in getting rid of all the Cornell references based on the fact that he is a biased "mouthpiece" in the pay of a gun control group I will go about it quote by quote.
Next on the list
In 1905, the Kansas Supreme Court in Salina v. Blaksley[87] made a collective right judicial interpretation modeled on Cruikshank.[88] The Kansas high court declared: "That the provision in question applies only to the right to bear arms as a member of the state militia, or some other military organization provided for by law, is also apparent from the second amendment to the federal Constitution, which says: '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.'"
Anyone reading Cruikshank will notice that Cruikshank DID NOT make a collective rights interpretation. Cornell's goal here seems to be to insinuate that the collective right theory existed much earlier then it in fact did.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/92/542/case.html
The word collective appears twice in Cruikshank
1. Citizens are the members of the political community to which they belong. They are the people who compose the community, and who, in their associated capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual, as well as their collective, rights. The duty of a government to afford protection is limited always by the power it possesses for that purpose.
Citizens are the members of the political community to which they belong. They are the people who compose the community, and who, in their associated capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as their collective rights. In the formation of a government, the people may confer upon it such powers as they choose. The government, when so formed, may, and when called upon should, exercise all the powers it has for the protection of the rights of its citizens and the people within its jurisdiction, but it can exercise no other. The duty of a government to afford protection is limited always by the power it possesses for that purpose.
The word "militia" does not appear at all in Cruikshank.
Unless someone can come up with a valid objection I will delete the bold portion above as inaccurate personal opinion.
68.160.141.242 (
talk)
21:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
scholarly study of the Second Amendment-- Philo-Centinel ( talk) 15:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
As the word militia does not appear at all in Cruikshank, it can without a single grain of doubt be determined that Cruikshank DID NOT made a collective right judicial interpretation that the right to keep and bear arms was applicable only within the context of a militia.
Courts and scholars clearly did construe Cruikshank as a collective rights decision for more than a hundred years Philo-Centinel ( talk) 15:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Meaning of English Declaration of Rights disputed by scholars and Heller The meaning of the English Declaration of Rights is a core example of how the same text has been read by different scholars in this debate to support both an individual right and a civic or collective right. If you compare the historians brief in Heller with Joyce Lee Malcolm's brief you can get a sense of the radically different interpretations. Can we start being a little honest and recognize that this issue is complex and that there are legitimate differences of opinion without once again turning to conspiracy theories about the Joyce Foundation Philo-Centinel ( talk) 15:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I would have thought the reference to Heller would have been enough authority, but I am happy to oblige with additional sources. The limited view of the Declaration of Rights provision on arms may be found in Lois Schworer's essay in The Second Amendment in Law and History or David Konig's essay on the Transatlantic Context of the Second Amendment in Law and History Review. The gun rights view may be found in Joyce Malcolm's, To Keep and Bear Arms Philo-Centinel ( talk) 20:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
BTW: The Second Amendment in Law and History was edited by Carl Bogus, well known Joyce Foundation mouthpiece, while Konig's article does not mention Cruikshank. PLEASE try to say on topic. This is about whether Cruikshank made a "militia based" interpretation of the Second Amendment. 141.154.12.116 ( talk) 21:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
141.154.12.116 ( talk) 12:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Cruikshank's "protection of their individual, as well as their collective, rights" simply recognized that individual and collective rights co-existed, and both are protected from federal infringement by the Second Amendment. Individuals and militiamen have always had the right to arms from our beginnings. The suggestion that, after Cruikshank, only collective military men had the right, flies in the face of our history. That individuals in every State of the union have firearms, is an historical fact. ( Truwik ( talk) 14:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC))
I'm agreeing with that. The Court, in passing, just acknowledged that both 'collective' and 'individual' rights existed. The Court's "protection of their...rights" referred to protection from federal infringement - as the Court clearly stated at page 553. The Court held that the Second Amendment did not protect Mr. Cruikshank's individual right - or anybody else's right within a State - because the right is not dependent on the U.S. Constitution for its existence. (That is, the right is inherited from our ancestors.) The Court said, only Congress can violate the 2A, and Mr. Cruikshank would have to look to his State (Louisiana) for protection. Since the Court did not protect an individual's right, gun-grabbers assumed Cruikshank supported only the collective right. This is nonsense and, in this editor's opinion, could well be "Defrauding the United States," which is a felony. It's saying: Thus sayeth the Court, when the Court didn't thus sayeth. Thus, "modeled on Cruikshank" must go. ( Truwik ( talk) 14:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC))
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)