Talk:Right to keep and bear arms/Archive 2

494:, "there are numerous instances of the phrase `bear arms` being used to describe a civilian`s carrying of arms. Early constitutional provisions or declarations of rights in at least some ten different states speak of the right of the `people` (or `citizen` or `citizens`) `to bear arms in defense of themselves (or `himself`) and the state,` or equivalent words, thus indisputably reflecting that under common usage `bear arms` was in no sense restricted to bearing arms in military service. And such provisions were enforced on the basis that the right to bear arms was not restricted to bearing arms during actual military service. . . . We conclude that the phrase `bear arms` refers generally to the carrying or wearing of arms. . . . The appearance of `bear Arms` in the Second Amendment accords fully with the plain meaning of the subject of the substantive guarantee, `the people,` and offers no support for the proposition that the Second Amendment applies only during periods of actual military service or only to those who are members of a select militia. Finally, our view of `bear arms` as used in the Second Amendment appears to be the same as that expressed in the dissenting opinion of Justice Ginsburg (joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Scalia and Souter) in Muscarello v. United States, 118 S. Ct. 1911, 1921 (1998); viz: `Surely a most familiar meaning (of carrying a firearm) is, as the Constitution`s Second Amendment ("to keep and bear Arms") and Black`s Law Dictionary, at 214, indicate: `wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person." 1711:

verifability. Once again it looks as if you're suggesting that the goverment court website cannot be trusted as to it's own publishing. It's to much of a stretch to say that you cannot use legal documents for direction quotations. I have read all your assertions in this page, and haven't yet found any justification for your position. IE you can challenge under WP:V if you believe the source is not reliable, I don't think that's what you're saying. You can challenge under WP:NOR if you believe that the editor is promoting their own ideas, such as "The US has firmly decided that the 2nd ammendment means xxx based on decision xxx" but in this case, it's merely a line that says "the court decided" and then directly quotes the court opinion. Without editorial or opinion, it cannot be classified as WP:NOR. You can challenge under WP:ATT if you believe there is no source or no reliable source, again, I don't think this is what you're saying, IE that the court's own published opinion is an unreliable source for the courts opinion. Certainly the court doesn't fall under "questionable source" but it does appear to fall under "Professional self-published sources" in WP:ATT. Using WP:RS to question an article leads back to WP:V. I don't see the grounds for your insistence that the courts opinion on this issue cannot be included.

680:

verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims." A simple quote from a primary source is only a descriptive claim about what the primary source says, which in no way violated WP:NOR. The distinction between ratio decidendi and obiter dictum is irrelevant here, because the quoted passage makes only a simple historical claim about "common usage" and what various historical documents said. The accuracy of such a claim is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. If the quote were being used to comment on what the holding of U.S. v. Emerson was, your point would be well taken.

3277:

Similarly, a claim about "common usage" is a simple factual or descriptive claim, and not one that involves legal authority. I agree with you that more or different sources would be better on this point, and I have an idea where I can find one or two, but they do not appear to be available online and I have not yet been able to track them down. In the meantime, though, I see no reason to make the perfect the enemy of the good. The Emerson opinion is a reliable secondary source, and should not be purged from the article just because some better source is theoretically out there somewhere, although not yet available to us.

2850:

Constitution toward the end of the work. Section 1857 discusses the rights of Englishmen, with the language "that the subjects ought to have a right to bear arms" (what is described by Blackstone as "the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence"). Section 1889 quotes the Second Amendment in its entirety. And section 1890 contains Story's famous statement that the "right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers."

3122:

and of itself, attempting to push a modified POV, with a cite tagged onto the end to try and make it "right". Second, it pushes the bounds on plaigerism, through not using quotes properly, which are needed to give credit to the ideas and phrasing of the 5th Circuit's observation. Third, it attempts to remove balance in the article through making it appear that the numerous cases were not numerous or common, contrary to what the court actually said in its writings. Fourth, we should let the court speak for itself, with its own words. Trained lawyers are not the issue here.

2636:

actually meant numerous, I fear that no source I ever could provide would ever budge your POV one iota. I am not opposed to a balanced presentation in this article; rather, I encourage it. However, it appears that you wish to strip out all mention of any balancing content. This approach is clearly not meeting the needs of readers and users of Knowledge. We owe our users/readers an article that is written in an NPOV, having a balance, with all major viewpoints being presented. Tenditious editing, and disruptive editing, serves no one well.

2426:

other hand you are simply choosing to reject any and all evidence that your opinion is not the only one. I'm not even saying which side is right or wrong, but that there is a controversy over the theory you mention is self-evident. There are mentions of "bear arms" as old as 1689 that I have seen (Gul. & Mar., sess. 2, (1689)) that do not mean "military service". Does this mean that that all old references are non-military? Of course not. Does this support Rowland's thesis that all references are military? Also not.

1453:"Highly selective quote" suggests that there are other parts of the opinion which, if considered along with the quoted part, would create a different impression than the quoted part alone does. Selective quoting is quoting the isolated bits of a source which support one's point, while ignoring other bits which would support an opposite conclusion. Is there some other part of the Emerson opinion that you think relates to the historical use of the phrase "bear arms," and effectively makes Yaf's quote misleading? 3639:

thereof, as you have proposed before and which I would also support) serves the purpose of the section of the article in which it appears. Does that clarify my comment above? You mention that the 5th Circuit's scholarship has been questioned by Uviller and Merkel. I have seen Uviller and Merkel's scholarship on this point questioned by other scholars. Should we remove references to their book then? That's what happens in debates like this, scholars question each other's interpretations.

153:

the second cited source, this is clearly a published website of a major U.S. protector of rights under the Bill of Rights and is certainly reliable and verifiable, also. I don't understand why you continue to insist on removing properly-cited information (with two reliable and verifiable sources, no less.) It is evident that the right to bear arms was not solely indication of participation in military service, contrary to what you insist on persisting to support with your POV pushing.

457:

This makes this observation be a more compact expression of the civilian practice of bearing arms in the state constitutions noted by the 5th Circuit, without having to find secondary sources relative to interpreting the constitutions of each of the numerous states in question regarding interpreting their state constitutions, As for the NRA website cite, I had removed that long ago previously, as it was a tertiary source, and only one secondary source was needed for meeting

5135:

not guarantee an individual right. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, on the other hand, has concluded that the Second Amendment does guarantee an individual right to bear arms, but that this right is subject to any limited, narrowly tailored specific exceptions or restrictions for particular cases that are reasonable and not inconsistent with the right of Americans generally to individually keep and bear their private arms as historically understood in

3799:

those holding opposing views. But regarding the "other scholars," I am thinking in particular of Nelson Lund, Robert M. S. McDonald, and Randy Barnett. The Gary Wills article from the New York Review of Books also drew harsh criticism in the same publication a couple of months later from Sanford Levinson, David C. Williams, Glenn Harlan Reynolds, and John K. Lattimer. But I would never think to excise the Wills reference from this article for that reason.

4954:"there are numerous instances of the phrase 'bear arms' being used to describe a civilian's carrying of arms. Early constitutional provisions or declarations of rights in at least some ten different states speak of the right of the 'people' "to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state,' or equivalent words, thus indisputably reflecting that under common usage 'bear arms' was in no sense restricted to bearing arms in military service." 1967:"there are numerous instances of the phrase 'bear arms' being used to describe a civilian's carrying of arms. Early constitutional provisions or declarations of rights in at least some ten different states speak of the right of the 'people' "to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state,' or equivalent words, thus indisputably reflecting that under common usage 'bear arms' was in no sense restricted to bearing arms in military service." 1096:"there are numerous instances of the phrase 'bear arms' being used to describe a civilian's carrying of arms. Early constitutional provisions or declarations of rights in at least some ten different states speak of the right of the 'people' "to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state,' or equivalent words, thus indisputably reflecting that under common usage 'bear arms' was in no sense restricted to bearing arms in military service." 120:"there are numerous instances of the phrase 'bear arms' being used to describe a civilian's carrying of arms. Early constitutional provisions or declarations of rights in at least some ten different states speak of the right of the 'people' "to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state,' or equivalent words, thus indisputably reflecting that under common usage 'bear arms' was in no sense restricted to bearing arms in military service." 4779:"there are numerous instances of the phrase 'bear arms' being used to describe a civilian's carrying of arms. Early constitutional provisions or declarations of rights in at least some ten different states speak of the right of the 'people' "to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state,' or equivalent words, thus indisputably reflecting that under common usage 'bear arms' was in no sense restricted to bearing arms in military service." 1787:. That is why it is always preferable to cite a reliable secondary source instead. On the subjects covered in this article I will be surprised if there is no abundant secondary sources that describe such court cased. Use that, instead. Now, if there are no secondary sources that describe these court cases, then do not cite them as we will indeed violating WP:NOR if we do: if no scholar, author, historian covers the subject, neither should we. 31: 1979:

by SaltyBoatr. Then, a cite from the NRA website was used to support the word "observed", quoting directly from the NRA website, but SaltyBoatr claimed this was OR, too, as the NRA FAQ website published as an information service was deemed by him to be a disallowed website, and another source had to be found. Then, the word "wrote" was substituted instead, with a cite added to the appellate court writings was put in also.

858:

verbatim is then just another step along the same improper path next to the cliff of plagiarism. A citation without quotes is for when an idea is paraphrased. Copying an idea in its entirety, word for word, but failing to indicate that it is copied by punctuating with quote marks, is improper academic behavior and is not permitted on Knowledge. It is not about copyrights entirely; it is also about academic courtesy

632:

The hallmark of a secondary source is commentary on or analysis or synthesis of primary sources, and that's what appellate court opinions consist of (commentary, analysis, synthesis). Others present primary sources and original arguments to the court, and the court creates analyzes, synthesizes, and comments on those sources and arguments. If an appellate court is doing its job, nothing it says is truly original.

5074:

article, which is merely that the court of appeals made a certain statement. The change by Yaf did not go beyond this, into, for example, comment saying that the court was correct. Now, if SaltyBoatr is saying that the statement by the court is verified but not relevant to the article, I think he would need to back that up. The prima facie appearance is that the statement is relevant.

873:

don't see the written policy behind what you describe as 'not permitted on Knowledge'. Could you point to that policy exactly? And third, I would welcome it if you could please acknowledge my concern about a reader needing specialized knowledge to understand the authority of that court. My removal of the opening sentence and the quotation marks was an attempt to fix that problem.

912:.) The authority of the court is not at issue, here. The statement by the court is cited in accordance with Knowledge guidelines. It is up to the reader to decide whether or not to believe properly cited content; it is the reason that content must be cited, so as to permit a reader to make an intelligent decision regarding the veracity of sources relative to claims or quotes. 4113:. A) If I do not edit the disputed text, and Yaf is true to pattern, no dicussion will follow and the disputed text stays. B) If I do edit the disputed text, you threaten to block me for edit warring. C) I have repeatedly tried option 3, engage constructively and civilly, but continually fail because Yaf will not engage. Do I have other options? 886:. I have seen others, but don't remember them off the top of my head. As for specialized knowledge being needed to read the summary of the content of the state constitutions of at least 10 states that is contained in what the 5th Circuit wrote, this is not the case, as only a reading ability in English is needed to comprehend this general statement. 578:

compiled by a lower court. The lower court record (transcripts of testimony, documents entered as exhibits, etc.) and the laws at issue are the primary sources being analyzed and commented upon. You may have a point about the importance of specialized knowledge, but that's tangential to the primary v. secondary source issue. Secondary sources

2031:

state declarations of rights"). That's the hallmark of a secondary source. Second, the language you quote is a very close paraphrase of what was originally a direct quote from the court opinion. Do you think paraphrasing the court opinion rather than using a verbatim quote makes the OR mitigates or exacerbated the OR issue?

1205:

secondary sources to use. Or, alternately I have offered to simply rephrase the wording, but this you refuse. This dispute can be easily resolved if you make a small compromise. You even refuse to acknowledge my offers of dispute resolution, preferring apparently to engage in edit warring. Edit wars do not solve disputes.

2406:

fact-checking. Try using books and journals published by well known publishing houses and universities with a reputation for fact checking. We need to be careful to separate the smoke from the fire, and lots of blogging and partisan writing on this topic exists. Lets stick to most reliable sourcing please.

4973:, both of which reintroduce principles of an individual right to firearms. Presently, nine of the federal circuit courts support a modified collective rights view, two of the federal circuit courts an individual rights view, and the Supreme Court and one federal circuit court have not addressed the question. 5018:

Regarding the above discussion of the courts; the very definition of having original jurisdiction means that courts determine facts. If one holds that court-determined facts are uncitable without a third party examining them, then one could just as well hold that facts published by the New York Times

4959:

to reflect the consideration that the definition of the right to bear arms is in no way restricted to a military or even a militia definition, at least by the viewpoint of many, to balance the militia or military service or combat definitions that are already in the definition section, to balance the

4530:

Among top legal scholars, most see some form of individual right to arms, founded in the Second Amendment or elsewhere. But among academic historians, things are much different. Essentially no top level historians see an individual component in the eighteenth century right to 'bear arms'. In other

4512:

For what it is worth, I think you will find that 'some agree...some do not' is true, but it is a simplistic view. The degree of disagreement depends on who you ask. (We all are familiar with the popular political disagreement mirrored here among the co-editors.) But, among top scholars, the degree

4473:

You are correct on the minor nitpick, my bad. Thanks for the clarification. On the Major nitpick, I'm not suggesting we substantially reword, just add a simple reference that shows some agree with the analysis, and some do not. The current writing appears that there is consensus that the analysis was

4152:

I have to disagree, I don't seem anything extreme at all. I know you don't like reference to court cases, but they are fact. The current paragraph seems very factual. Probably it should include both sets of info. I still think the whole US-related nature of both those paragraphs better qualifies them

3926:

section of the Emerson decision could be expanded with part of the quote, perhaps reading, " The 2001 Fifth Circuit court ruling United States v. Emerson and the Ninth Circuit court 2007 ruling Parker v. District of Columbia, both of which introduce principles of an individual right to firearms, with

3798:

I don't mean to smear them, only to point out that sharp disagreements and criticism are not atypical in this kind of debate, and we would soon be without any sources whatsoever on which to base articles on controversial topics if we had to disqualify all sources that have been strongly criticized by

3121:

The authority is not what is at issue here, contrary to what you claim. Rather, for balancing a major point of view with significant representation, the observation of the court is very much needed, indeed. My problem with your text is manifold. First, the text you proposed is original research in

3083:

removed all balancing content, I have slightly reworded your content. My text says almost exactly the same thing as what the court says. What is your problem with my text? As to your idea that the average reader only needs English to understand court documents is wildly off base. Even trained lawyers

3045:

I don't understand the constant insistence that the reader need to understand the authority of the court, but no similar requirements are made of the research by those who say the term historically meant military only, such as Wills. This is an inconsistent requirement. If we must judge the authority

2006:

You again evade my issue that readers can easily misunderstand the authority of the court. Also, the NRA website is not allowed per WP:V. The NRA has no apparent reliable publication process. You also evade that we both agree we should include the court's message. We really are only arguing about

1906:

Still, the military usage of the term 'bear arms' was not exclusive. In at least ten early states constitutional provisions or state declarations of rights the term is used to describe the right of the 'people' "to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state,' or similar words. Thus it is seen

1692:

and re-ask your question. Quoting directly from a primary court document is original research. Per WP:V you should use a reliable third party published source. That might be a law journal discussing the Emerson case (there are two prominent articles of which I am aware), or perhaps a book like that

1651:

2. What does "bear arms" mean. It seems that there is a scholarly difference of opinion on this topic. If that's the case, aren't we obligated to present both sides, and possibly specifically list it as in dispute? I've seen several other pages use this tactic. Can we agree that there is a scholarly

1077:

631:

WP:NOR. You keep arguing based on what an average reader can understand, but that has nothing to do with the WP:NOR definitions of primary v. secondary sources. A secondary or even tertiary source can be incredibly opaque for an average reader, but that does not transform it into a primary source.

530:

I still see that directly and selectively quoting from the primary court document, even with the more neutral verb 'wrote', to be violating WP:NOR. The average reader, lacking specialized knowledge, can be mislead whether what the court 'wrote' was an opinion, a ruling or fact. This is an important

461:

issues regarding citing this quote. It was, as you may recall, what I had inserted originally to address your earlier concerns since you felt that an additional source to the secondary source was needed; then, you had expressed that the NRA website (a valid tertiary source) was not acceptable to your

380:

Also, I am curious how the usage 'in defense of self and state' means individual use, considering that at that time (and in the prior generation) that a large role of the militia was for the defense of frontier farms from Indian attack, and the act of defending one's farm against Indians is a defense

347:

Furthermore, as the Fifth Circuit noted, some Pennsylvania Antifederalists would have gone even further, proposing an amendment that stated, in part, "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own State, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game."

152:

Incidentally, reviewed the Akhil and Vikram Amar hatchet piece. It claims that only one example existed, yet this is clearly NOT what the court found, by virtue of the quote from the court claiming "numerous instances", and by the legal review by the NRA in the second source. As for the NRA website,

4850:

in articles like this (although it would constitute a primary source in an article about the court case itself), and editors should not unilaterally remove such references from articles on the basis that a superior source may theoretically exist except in the course of actually improving the article

3276:

You have still not explained why an understanding of holding v. dictum is necessary to understand this quote. The claim that "there are numerous instances of the phrase 'bear arms' being used to describe a civilian's carrying of arms" is not the kind of claim that requires legal authority to make.

2594:

for what you wrote, and now you deny. My point is that when the 5th Circuit wrote 'numerous', they are describing about 10 in 500 usages. I see this as about one fifth of one percent, a tiny amount. You see this as 'most commonly', and this is apparently your original thought. Can you cite something

2482:

I welcome improvements and collaborative editing of this. And, we must face the fact that 'bear arms' is an English term, and it naturally has origin and history which strongly parallels the English legal jurisdictions. (I also see some significant early associations to the Roman, especially found

2425:

This is a discussion page, not an article. Therefore we are free in the midst of our discussion and attempt to understand to refer to and quote from a variety of sources. An official document from the senate quoting literally hundreds of reliable sources is hardly to be dismissed out of hand. On the

2315:

First, it's not supposed to be a primarily USA focused article, so all of the hooplah surrounding US legal sources should probably not be in the main paragraph anyway. Probably there should be a subsection in the US section of the article that says "US interpretation of bear arms" and then discusses

1978:

This version is not an OR issue. The first cite was put there to address SaltyBoatr's concern on the word "wrote", as he claimed it was original research to say "wrote" without citing the word "wrote". Previously, it had said "observed", instead of "wrote" but this, too, was criticized as being OR

1643:

IMO legal documents from reputable sources are good sources of information. It's great to add additional sources where possible, both for validation and for ease of understanding. But I think to forgo use of legal documents because we assume a reader will misunderstand them does no one any good. I'd

1543:

Again, I don't mind the addition of a secondary source as you put it, but to do it in place of a primary source actually diminishes the reliability of this article, not enhances it. The secondary source should be used in addition to the primary to support it. In some cases a secondary source ends up

992:

I would like to assume good faith, but it is hard to do so considering that I see this Emerson quote used extensively, exploiting the illusion of court authority, on so many of the gun rights blogs. You could help me see (versus assume) actual good faith if you were willing to show a willingness to

872:

Thanks Yaf, I really appreciate your willingness to discuss this because I truly believe that we can work out a mutually agreeable compromise here. First, a verbatim copy isn't important to me and I would happily accept a rewording which restates the idea without using the exact wording. Second, I

857:

from anywhere, and not properly attributing it with quote marks and a reference, is improper academic behavior which is not permitted on Knowledge. Doing this makes it look like a student is plagiarizing and/or being academically lazy. Even adding a cite to this failure to indicate what was copied

679:

state that appellate court opinions are primary sources. Even if we assume for the moment that they are primary sources, WP:NOR does not say that primary sources cannot be used. It says that statements based on primary sources must "(1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily

597:

have a point, in that an average reader cannot understand the context, weight and authority of the court. That is why I ask for you to use a credible secondary source. My concern is not with what the court wrote, but with the reader's ability to understand the weight of authority. A direct quote

286:

I totally agree with you that we should not be claiming of 'solely' or 'exclusively', for the late 18th Century. Though, 10 of 300, hardly should be considered 'numerous' either. The major point I see from reading secondary research is that the meaning of 'bear arms' has changed through time, with

4127:

I don't understand the continued behavior on the part of several editors to continually modify and revert disupted text. We have been discussing it here in depth, and obviously have not yet reached an agreement. I don't think it's helpful for anyone to continually add or subtract this text until we

3712:

You should specifically identify your 'other scholars' that question Uviller and Merkel. Your vague and unspecific criticism has the appearance of a smear. By the way, Uviller and Merkel cannot be described as entirely biased, see for instance pages 212 through 225 where they examine in depth the

3638:

No, the purpose of the section is to present various historical uses and definitions of the phrase "bear arms." Not to authoritatively declare what the current legal meaning of the phrase is in any particular law in which that phrase might appear. The quote in question (or a reasonable paraphrase

2504:

Another basic issue that needs to be addressed, and I point to the Amar article as my secondary source for this idea, is that the term 'bear arms' has undergone an evolution in meaning. Back in time, it rarely meant an individual right and predominately (almost exclusively) meant military service;

1874:

Extends to what? To say 'what' requires original research or a secondary source. Also, putting the 'court says' in the lead sentence is redundant, the footnote covers the attribution adequately. The mention of 'the court wrote' in the lead in sentence is confusing to some readers who think that

1674:

1. Yes; 2. Yes, as there is a long history of disputed meaning; presenting only one side as SaltyBoatr wishes to do is not serving Knowledge's readers. 3. Absolutely; the 5th Circuit's words definitely present one side of the dispute, albeit contrary to what SaltyBoatr wishes to see in the article.

964:

14:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC) The reason the distinction is important is that some users could be confused that the court has a great authority, (when it may not), with regard to the definition of 'bear arms'. Evidence that my concern may be true is seen by the fact that the political action website of

862:

Knowledge policy regarding citations and permitted uses of copied material taken in their entirety from another source. There is nothing wrong with just using quote marks, attributing the quote to the source, and then providing a cite for a reference. Why stoop to plagiarizing material to obscure

369:

I think the term 'numerous' in the court document needs to be quantified. It is interesting to see the usages of the term 'bear arms' in the Library of Congress database of colonial era documents, as recommended in the Michael Dorf Findlaw-writ article. I recommend that you take a look. Clearly,

363:

At the Founding, "keep and bear" appears to have been understood as a unitary phrase, like other constitutional terms such as "cruel and unusual" or "necessary and proper." In my own research, I have not come across any documents of the Founding period that treat "keep" as adding a right to private

308:

The issue, from my reading, is that the meaning of the right to bear arms was largely considered self-evident, until a goodly time after the Civil War, in that RKBA clearly applied to individuals, whether those "upon a journey" or those providing actual militia service. As we discussed so long ago

5134:

United States Courts of Appeals are split on whether the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, of which Tennessee is a part, has concluded that the Second Amendment does

5073:

I have looked at the diff provided by SaltyBoatr. The objection of SaltyBoatr seems to be that the source is not reliable enough. I disagree. The source is provided so that the accuracy of the article can be verified. The caselaw web site would seem to be sufficient to verify the claim made by the

3206:

please explain which part of the quote you believe people have a hard time understanding. It seems pretty straight-forward to me. Plus I still think we should move the US-related understandings to the US section. And we might want to include more sources, since the "bear arms" military history has

2359:

First, if there wasn't this difference, the whole dispute would not have arisen. Note for example that the 5th circuit opinion in question differs from this view. You can check the references included in the opinion. I believe this may be the reason you're reticent to include the direct quote from

2030:

Two questions. First, how do you conclude that this is a primary source? As I've discussed above, appellate court opinions would seem to be secondary sources. The appellate court here is analyzing, synthesizing, or commenting on other (primary) sources ("early state constitutional provisions or

1754:

Can someone point out what specific documents are being discussed? As a general rule of thumb, primary sources such as court transcripts, affidavits, and other court documents should not be quoted directly, unless described on secondary sources. OTOH, a high court opinion could be cited directly.

1730:

The actual primary sources here are the declarations of rights and constitutions in at least 10 states. The court summary is a secondary source to the topic at hand, relative to the primary sources. Quoting directly from a verifiable and reliable source, even if it is a court case transcript, is

1438:

In Yaf's preferred text 1) His act of choosing a highly selective quote from the court ruling is a form of interpretation. 2) Also, his choice of wording creates a real risk that some readers, lacking specialized knowledge necessary to understand court documents, may reach a false conclusion about

1178:

SaltyBoatr, would you agree with consensus and allow this change to be made? It seems you are the only editor who objects, and, by my count, 4 other editors have attempted to make this same change, but you have reverted repeatedly, thereby causing the page to be protected in perpetuity. Original

982:

document itself. If anything, I would add that the NRA might be parroting this article, as this article with that statement goes back for many months now, perhaps prior to the NRA putting up their article, or perhaps not. I honestly don't know when the NRA put up their article. You are seeing an

950:

As noted by PubliusFL previously, "The distinction between ratio decidendi and obiter dictum is irrelevant here, because the quoted passage makes only a simple historical claim about "common usage" and what various historical documents said. The accuracy of such a claim is easily verifiable by any

4875:

Published opinions are opinions certified by the issuing court for publication in the court's official reporter. Published opinions are binding precedent for lower courts, while unpublished opinions are not. I believe federal appellate court judges are appropriately considered to be "authors or

4408:

nitpick not because it isn't important, but because discussion of this (analysis/opinion) difference is not likely to be helpful to those who are not lawyers, law students, paralegals, legal historians, or otherwise sufficiently familiar with this kind of potentially confusing distinction. If you

4070:

Can I suggest a fourth option? Move the disputed passage to the talk page for discussion and fixing. If you study the pattern of this specific edit war you will see that as soon as the text in the article matches the version favored by Yaf, he then withdraws and becomes silent. This frustrates

2877:

The unsaid debate here is what did 'bear arms' mean in 1789 (not 1830). At the time of Joseph Story, the issue of Negro rights to join militias had risen to the forefront in the US political discourse, and therefore the debate over arming of Negro's was much different in 1789 versus 1830. Which

2369:

There is plenty of opinion on the other side as well. I'm not saying one side or the other is correct. I'm saying where there is a difference of opinion wikipedia needs to document rather than say one side is fact and the other is false. See for example the references I've included both above and

2327:

Secondly, as it stand the article is extremely POV. It ignores almost entirely the fact that there is a scholarly difference of opinion on the subject in the US, and the only mention of the opposing view is given without a supporting reference, in fact, the reference with the opposing view is one

2115:

terms. No one in the discussion you link to suggests otherwise. The primary sources on which an appellate court opinion is based include the lower court record (including trial transcripts, which are undisputedly primary sources), statutes, and briefs submitted by the parties. I make no claims

1935:

I totally agree. That diff is a snapshot in time frozen by the edit war protection lock on the article. I favor revising the attribution to the three cites I have mentioned above, fixing this OR problem. Unfortunately, the three cites I found do not fix the NPOV problem. I totally accept that the

1339:

in order to quote a legal document. In fact, legal documents are quote extensively in Knowledge. Denying relevant information like this to end-users is a detriment to them. I'm happy to follow dispute resolution, in fact I think it's probably a good idea since what seems to be at issue is not the

778:

Alternately, when you use the simple word 'wrote' instead of 'opinion', the reader is at a loss to know the ambiguous distinction without specialized knowledge. This is dragging on far too long, why do not you just use a true secondary source describing the legal status of what the court wrote?

577:

I'm lost. We're talking about an appellate opinion, not a trial transcript. An appellate opinion would clearly seem to be a secondary source per your link. Appellate judges are not witnesses, they do not testify or present evidence. They analyze and comment on the record that has already been

456:

The present wording is fine as I see it, as it uses a verifiable and reliable secondary source (the observation of the 5th Circuit) instead of the primary sources of the constitutions of the states themselves, and WP policy is to use secondary sources instead of primary sources whenever possible.

346:

To be sure, one can find the occasional usage suggesting the right is not always related to military service — especially among Pennsylvanians. For example, the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 provided, in part: "The people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State."

340:

Moreover, if one reads Founding Era documents, one finds that the phrase "bear arms" was almost always used to refer to military service. (The interested reader can try this himself or herself by searching for the phrase "bear arms" in the Library of Congress's database of congressional and other

4051:

Sometimes a page protection is very useful, as it affords editors to look for a common ground. Sometimes is only an impasse, to get to back edit warring as soon as protection is lifted. Sometimes, people do not learn unless their editing privileges are temporarily vacated. That is my experience.

2849:

I'm afraid the source you're using may not be searching the entire text of Story's Commentaries. The text of the Constitution at the beginning of the work and section 301 contain the two instances you mention. But the bulk of the instances appear (naturally) in the chapter on amendments to the

1613:

first of all, I really don't need a secondary source to say "the court said" when we have the courts actual published opinion, which if definitely more authoritative than someone else describing what the court said. Secondly, see my above references for supporting what the meaning is of what the

476:

You make some good points, but you still do not fix the major problem that some readers lack the specialized knowledge which is required to properly understand direct quotes from court documents. This is a serious problem which must be fixed. I suggest that you find a reliable secondary source

3320:

The flip side of your question is: Why then is phrasing it as a court quote so important? If your premise is true, then making the paraphrased statement without the false sense of authority should be equally informative and valuable. Regarding finding credible secondary sources describing the

2517:

Totally false, according to the 5th Circuit quote, among other sources. "Bear arms" commonly meant an individual right, being it was true for "numerous" instances by the 5th Circuit quote. This is the key POV trigger-point that seems to be the real issue here, in that the 5th Circuit quote is

2265:

Nevertheless, given the scope and nature of this article topic, the direct quote proposed seems reasonably appropriate for a WP article, especially since the article acknowledges that there are differing positions in U.S. case law, and that point is substantiated with at least a couple adequate

1710:

I just re-read WP:V as you suggested. I don't see anywhere that it says you cannot quote from court documents. The statement that info comes from a third-party source doesn't mean it should come from a tertiary source. It speaks to the reliability of the source, as evidenced that WP:V is about

1595:

Your statement 'legally supported' is ambiguous, but in any case it is original research. Can you cite a credible secondary source supporting your statement? Almost for sure you could do that easily. Fine, use that source as your source for the edit. I would be OK with that. Problem over!

1226:

Simply directly quoting a legal document is not a violation of WP:NOR, in fact it is specifically listed twice in that section as allowable. "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Knowledge". Are you suggesting that the court document is inaccurate? If so,

1110:

As discussed extensively above, the direct quotation from a court document requires the reader to have specialized knowledge to understand the authority of the court. (In violation of WP:NOR). This is disputed among editors. Perhaps a compromise can be found. Yaf, will you agree to follow a

4903:

Newspaper articles also don't have third-party fact checking. Same for some "scholarly" works, and many magazines. The one thing we do know about a published court opinion is that if it comes from the court itself, it is a reliable source for what the court actually said, as opposed to someone

4556:

An interesting idea, but not entirely correct. All historians are not in agreement. No need to go through it all here again, it's not really the appropriate place for it. There are plenty of other areas to argue the idea, but the idea that this is entirely one-sided on a scholarly basis simply

2635:

Please re-read what I wrote. (I apologize for writing in a way to have caused you so much confusion in comprehension.) When the 5th Circuit wrote numerous, they meant a considerable number. That is, it was not a rarity. As for citing by your standards of Verifiability, that their "numerous"

1281:

Far too much has been written by me to answer similar questions to yours, yet you ask again. Your question misses my point, which is not the 'accuracy' but rather the risk of misunderstanding. See above, but in short a reader needs specialized knowledge to understand direct quotes from court

445:

Also, your Emerson quote still needs some work. Could you please suggest an alternate compromise wording instead of repeatedly inserting the same text. That way, maybe, someday we could find a mutually acceptable solution. Playing ping pong with your same text over and over is not working.

97:

Moving this here for fixing, two big problems. It relies on a website with an unclear publication process, which is not allowed. And, it is exceedingly ambiguous, as to weight of authority, because specialized knowledge is needed to understand the weight, when reading directly from the court

4884:

says: "When discussing legal texts, it is more reliable to quote from the text, appropriately qualified jurists or textbooks than from newspaper reporting." It would be difficult to construct a definition of "appropriately qualified jurists" that did not include federal appeals court judges.

2383:

which is the report of the subcommittee on the constituation of the united states sentate - 97th congress, second session, Feb 1982. "Such a reading fails to note that the Framers used the term "militia" to relate to every citizen capable of bearing arms". Also you can read the article on the

1136:

none of which seem to apply to your argument. I can't see how use of an official court document can constitute a problem under WP:NOR as you suggest. It certainly doesn't fall under the "what is excluded" section. Indeed, it is the antithesis of original research. In fact it says that public

437:

It is not up to me to 'investigate' the Emerson edit that you repeatedly re-insert into the article, it is you who has the burden of proof per WP:V. You have not yet pointed to a secondary source (that is, one with a reliable publication process) for your Emerson court document, though I do

2405:

Again, please cite from reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, per WP:V. The 1982 Strom Thurman report you mention is a primary political document, hardly scholarly. The Constitution.org website you used is a partisan blog with no apparent

1204:

There is no consensus here. By the way, my minority objection is very modest. That is that you use an alternative secondary source that doesn't rely on your direct selective quotation, (your original research), from the primary court document. I have even provided you with three credible

4163:

Pardon me? The edit war vacillated between having Yaf's passage all the way in, versus all the way out. The PubliusFL suggestion has 90% of Yaf's passage in. The present version has 100% of the passage in. I ask for a 90% compromise, during negotiations, and you insist on 100%. Can you

1731:

not original research. Besides, it is easy for any reasonably-intelligent English-language-speaking reader to verify for himself whether or not the cited statement from a reliable source is, in fact, true. No issues exist here at all. On the contrary, it appears that what we have is a

441:

Answering your question (I would appreciate if you could also answer mine): My attribution for 'numerous' comes from several places, but look no farther than immediately above, in the Michael Dorf analysis which describes the usage as 'almost always' referring to military service.

438:

acknowledge your attribution to the National Rifle Association website. The burden is on you to rectify the problem that quoting directly from the court document requires some readers to have specialized knowledge to understand the weight of authority of those judges in that court.

268:

instances of the meaning at this time included 'self', though I think the studies find the count is about 10 meanings including 'self', (or 'self' and 'state') compared with about '300' meanings of the 'military' sense. A ratio of 10 to 300 is why I favor the wording 'predominate

674:

secondary source. When citing to a journal article, you are assuming that the author of the article did not make up his sources. We expect appellate judges to do the same thing that we expect scholars to do: cite their sources. The paragraph of WP:NOR to which you point does

3568:

Please provide evidence that this 5th Circuit ruling meets this condition, specifically: was subject to fact-checking. Their fact-checking has been credibly questioned, see Uviller and Merkel page 27, footnote 74 which explicitly states that the 5th Circuit ignored the fact.

3013:

Totally false. The average reader only needs to be able to read English, which is tacitly assumed for users of the English-language Knowledge, to understand this statement. Your idea of compromise is to remove all balancing content counter to your POV; this is not compromise.

1633:

There seem to be a couple of open issues in contention. Most if not all parties seem open to some kind of dispute solution. I propose that we try to separate them and handle them individually. Please feel free to add to this list if I've missed an issue dear to your heart.

424:

portion of the 5th Circuit's observation, that, of course, would be fine. But, stating that "the predominate usage during that time period was in the context of military" appears to be original research, contrary to what the 5th Circuit actually stated in its observation.

246:

brief which found 300 instances with the term meaning 'military service'? (I have lost the reference, but will look it up for you.) I understand that the Findlaw-Writ article points out that only one of the Emerson Court exclusively 'self' meanings predates the Bill of

4453:

analysis, that's fine AFAIC, feel free to add them. I'll even be willing to help look for some myself if that's what you want. The more references, the better. Let's just try to get this resolved, since this discussion has gone on quite a bit now; and concessions on the

1529:

text), but Yaf didn't like that. Again, I am very open to compromise. But, the option offered is the exact Yaf wording, no compromise. There must be some possible negotiated middle ground here. If you don't like mine, please suggest some compromises of your own.

4845:

with respect to the primary sources being reviewed by the court. In this respect a published appellate court opinion is very different from a trial transcript, which records raw testimony and is clearly a primary source. A published appellate court opinion can be a

5091:

had a few points that were a bit more substantial than that (however he can speak for himself) ... but the issue has pretty much been resolved with the addition of references to the relevant article section, so this RfC can be considered closed as far as I can tell.

1524:

This new cite is still primary, and does not fix the problem. Again, please use a credible secondary source. I have provided three already (see above) or find another. Alternately, I have suggested just paraphrasing the courts wording (the present 'protected'

582:

require specialized knowledge to fully understand. Most peer-reviewed academic journals, for example, are written at a level appropriate for scholars in a particular field, not laypersons, yet such journals are clearly secondary sources and not primary sources.

2819:

only finds two instances of the two word term 'bear arms'. The first a direct quote of the Bill of Rights, and the second, on page 217, being a military usage. Please be specific in your claim that Joseph Story documented 'multiple meanings', I don't see it.

598:

from a court document is primary, regardless of whether the court document refers to some other 'secondary' document(s). By your logic everything which an appellate or supreme court writes would be considered 'secondary', and that does not comport with WP:NOR.

4964:

United States federal courts have generally interpreted the federal right to bear arms in these United States as the modified collective right, not an individual right, with two recent exceptions in the federal lower courts: The 2001 Fifth Circuit court ruling

4766:"United States federal courts have consistently interpreted the federal right to bear arms in United States as the modified collective right, not an individual right, with two recent exceptions in the federal lower courts: The 2001 Fifth Circuit court ruling 2292:

If a direct quote carries risk which can be easily avoided, I disagree that it reasonable to make a direct quote. Take the safer route. The question of needing balance is an entirely separate matter. All agree we should add more balance to the article.

1323:

Risk of misunderstanding seems not to be the point of WP:NOR, perhaps you're referring to a different policy? You address repeatedly a question of "reader needs to know specialized knowledge to understand" but that is not what WP:NOR says. What it does say

4557:

doesn't hold. That's the great thing about the Knowledge, that these ideas can be thrashed about much better and on a much more timely basis than the paperbound world, especially one which requires such an expensive printing process as a volume of books.

2197:

Again, I don't really have a problem with the court's message. The pro-gun POV needs to be included in the article per WP:NPOV . Yet, I see a problem that our readers need specialized knowledge to know the weight of authority of the court's message.

1638:

1. Can/should legal documents be used in Knowledge articles. Additionally there is much discussion about whether such documents are primary, secondary, or tertiary sources. I think that is not as critical as the main discussion of the actual use of the

1013:

If what you say is true, it appears that only the message of the court document is important, then will you accept an accurate paraphrase of what the court wrote? Then, you get what you want and at the same time resolve the WP:NOR problems that I see.

4939:

My proposal for a compromise is two fold. First, I propose that we change the definition section to include, replacing the present 5th Circuit quote that existed for many months until May 16th when the controversy began, with the following, instead:

1513:

I prefer this because the other site requires registration. Also, there was some sentiment above that perhaps the transcription on that site could be suspect. This is the official site for the Fifth Circuit, so I think we can regard it as canonical.

1129:"Original research (OR) is a term used in Knowledge to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position" 1330:

In other words, they should be able to look at a direct quote from a court transcript, find the transcript themselves, and verity that the quote is indeed accurate. I believe this passes that tests. They do not need to know the distinction between

2661:

The idea that the term has only recently come to mean an individual rights is not a fact, it is in fact one basis for the contention in this article. It needs to be listed appropriately, with opinions on both sides. Stating it as fact is POV.

2556:

I did not misquote the 5th Circuit. I never claimed the 5th Circuit wrote "commonly meant" as you indicate, but rather that they used the word "numerous" in describing the situation, and that this is evidence that it was commonly meant. The

1436:"For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Knowledge passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source." 2441:

So can move the US-related controversy to the US section and present both sides without anyone getting upset? Does someone want to take a crack at this and put a suggested revision of the two sections here first so we can see how it works?

1581:

I have no problem with that statement, but it doesn't change the factual basis that the 5th Circuit has legally supported this position. It seems to be key to overall understanding of this issue, at least as "bear arms" relates to the USA.

1137:

hearings are a primary source. Your continued insistence to dis-allow use of court documents looks less like an attempt to keep the article accurate than an attempt to assert a particular POV by excluding primary sources you disagree with.

309:

in writing the other article, under your earlier identity, the turnabout really only started with Arkansas, although Kentucky was rather clear on the individual reading. The real turn in opinion only came with Kansas circa 100 years ago.

4531:

words, the modern individual 'right to arms' exists, but it is a different right than the eighteenth century military form of the right to 'bear arms'. This is not my original thought, I give attribution to Uviller and Merkel, page 246.

3866:

Not important to me, or not important to Yaf? If it is truly not important, why the huge struggle to include that 'the court wrote' text? If it is truly not important, then omitting 'the court wrote' text should not matter either way.

3321:

Emerson quote, they do indeed exist, I have identified three. Regarding 'why' authority of the court matters? The reason is that some readers will see that this is an official 'court' and falsely assume that there is a ruling here.

3238:

The opening sentence, prior to the quote is ambiguous. Some readers will see that as if the court has a lot of authority, or not. This can be easily avoided by using a secondary source. Why you do not has not yet been explained.

2983:

Still, there is the problem that an average reader needs specialized knowledge to understand the authority of the court. Please fix that problem. My latests suggestion says almost exactly what you want to say. Try compromise.

193:

And, per WP:V, websites, such at that of the National Rifle Association are not 'properly-cited'. You and I obviously disagree on this. Are you willing to join with me to seek out a neutral third party opinion on this question?

4977:

since this section is more implicitly just a US-centric section. (Incidentally, I would have responded much earlier to this discussion, but was unable, having been blocked. Thanks for the emails in the interim, especially the

1227:

please help us by showing why you think so. Your suggestion of adding a secondary source can be helpful, but denying users of Knowledge information that is clearly accurate and factual and allowable under WP:NOR is not helpful.

4071:

attempts to find a negotiated compromise solution. If the disputed text is moved out of the article and onto the talk page, then all parties will share an interest in being engaged in finding a mutually acceptable solution.

4783:

Presently, nine of the federal circuit courts support a modified collective rights view, two of the federal circuit courts an individual rights view, and the Supreme Court and one federal circuit court have not addressed the

4128:

have better understanding. It seems to be an editor behavior issue. Jossi, your assistance has been helpful. Currently there has been a revised paragraph put in place, and I wonder if it's something everyone can live with.

462:

way of thinking, despite being reliable, verifiable, and cited. So, I had removed the tertiary source previously, as it was largely redundant to the secondary source of the 5th Circuit. If you feel that the present wording

4861:

You use the word 'published'. Could you comment and clarify about the 'publication process' involved in court rulings? It appears to be a drastically different process compared with the publication process described in

2518:

counter to your POV pushing, hence you won't agree to let this properly-cited quote stand. There is no transition in meaning; rather, it appears to be a modern gun-banner position that the meaning has somehow "changed".

965:

the NRA seeks to raise the profile of this quotation presumably to promote their political agenda. There is an appearance that you may be parroting this political agenda. I invite you to dispel this odd appearance.

739:

Let me get this straight. You are contending that citing a quote to a 5th Circuit opinion from 2001 does not substantiate that the 5th Circuit wrote the quoted text in 2001? That's all the "uncited" sentence said.

2227:

I caught wind of this dispute through the grapevine. It seems like the "primary/secondary source" distinction really doesn't help here, and the salient question is simply whether it is appropriate to directly cite

4851:

by inserting better sources, especially when the removal of the court reference is contested by other editors. I take no position regarding whether a direct quote or paraphrase is preferable in this situation.

3486:

For the purposes for which the quote is being used, it doesn't particularly matter whether it was just a statement or a ruling. Because in this part of the article we're interested in what people wrote and said

2052:

It mitigates the OR problem, some. It mitigates the OR problem related to the risk of confusion by the reader as to the sense of authority if the court. Still, using a true secondary source would be better.

4195:

Once you have two or three responses, consider the viewpoints offered. If you need to ask questions from the respondents, do so, but avoid re-starting your own dialog or dragging them down with long diatribes.

826:

this again, giving the edit summary "(rv; improper use of quoted material without indicating quotes; Undid revision 141415695 by SaltyBoatr (talk))". Please explain what is improper? The court record is not

5047:

Your point is only relevant if you're using the courts published documents to make an editorial statement. If you are simply quoting it as part of something else, then it is in fact the MOST reliable source.

2816:

You claim that the Joseph Story 3 volume Commentaries documents 'multiple meanings' of the term 'bear arms'. The full text of that treatise is in the public domain and searchable on Google Books. A search

352:

Yet while these uses show that the phrase "bear arms" could be, and sometimes was, adapted to include activities outside of the organized military, they hardly cast doubt on the dominant Founding Era usage.

3370:

I don't see the matter of court authority as being important. It was a statement, not a ruling. If it were a ruling authority would be quite important, but it's not. It's just a statement the court made.--

1247:

Examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews;

1854:

Interestingly, the sticking point is not the message from the court, because I agree that this message belongs in the article to present that point of view to maintain neutrality. That message, presently

1149:

As this page was protected for edit warring, it would be inappropriate for any admin to make significant changes until it is unprotected. To achieve that, you need to find consensus about the content and

357:

What about the fact that the Second Amendment protects not merely the right to "bear" but also to "keep" arms? The Fifth Circuit thought that "keep" certainly means "possess." But that is not necessarily

4086:

If that is agreeable by all involved, I am no longer needed here. But if the editwar persists, I will take action to afford editors the possibility to discuss things without the pressure of an edit war.

1037:

Exactly. That is why I beg you to use a credible secondary source for attribution of your selective quote from the Emerson court document. Your direct selective quoting, and omission of explanation of

2791:, 3 volumes by Joseph Story; Boston, 1833 ISBN-10: 0-89089-314-4 - Note the early date on this one re the the usage of "bear arms". I think it's clear that even 180 years ago it had multiple meanings. 726:

Wrong, the sentence preceding the direct quote is indeed uncited and may be removed per WP:V policy. With that sentence removed, the quote left hanging lacks context and therefore should be removed.

4429:

analysis is substantially excerpted in the body text of the article, and given that the repudiation thereof is detailed only in footnotes, one could argue that any POV bias is actually weighted in

541:

Surely your "fact" tag can't seriously be intended to question whether the 5th Circuit actually wrote the quoted text in 2001. Can you point to which part of WP:NOR you believe is relevant here?

810:

Trying again, removing the opening sentence resolves the 'undue weight' issue, and still conveys the message I think. Some tweaking of the text might help, but this is a step forward I hope.

1024:

I'm not sure that would work. If it takes specialist knowledge to interpret court documents then it must surely take even greater specialist knowledge to accurately paraphrase court documents.--

716:

with this edit summary (copied now to this talk page): "(rv - unfair to describe passage as "uncited." it most certainly is cited. you contend that the source is not of high enough quality.)"

1571:

says exactly the same thing as Yaf's text, but solves the problem of 'weight of authority'. What is wrong with that wording? It says the same thing as Yaf wants and avoids the dispute.

1202:

is a decision-making process that not only seeks the agreement of most participants, but also to resolve or mitigate the objections of the minority to achieve the most agreeable decision."

125:

To help with this, I have been searching for secondary sources, with reliable publication process, which discuss this passage in the Emerson court documents. This is all I can find, the

2495:

Ok, it looks like we have at least an agreement in principle that we should try this out. Is there someone in the group who is experienced with WP:LEAD and wants to take a crack at it?

2312:

Ok, just for a moment to leave alone the issue of quoting from the 5th circuit, which I think will work itself out eventually... I have a couple of other problems with this article.

1544:

almost as hearsay. I'd rather have a direct quote from a court opinion than "Bob says that the court says..." as a secondary source alone. A few comments I've found re this issue are:

555:. My concern is that specialized knowledge is required to understand 'wrote' in the context of reading the primary court document. The question of whether what the court wrote being 4764:

I would like to make a proposal for a compromise. I would like to propose that we change paragraph four of the Three models section to read (italics section is change from current),

974:

To be perfectly honest, I never even found the NRA website with the mention of the 5th Circuit quote until you asked for a tertiary source in addition to the secondary source of the

2894:

The Spitzer book does not differ from Amar, Dorf and Uviller & Merkel, at least that I can see. Can you cite quotes and page numbers of what you view as 'different' opinion?

1042:

creates an illusion and distortion for readers that lack specialized knowledge. We have gone back and forth over this dispute to no avail for far too long, do you agree to follow

4841:

When a published opinion of an appellate court analyzes, synthesizes, and comments on other (primary) sources, that published opinion is a secondary source within the meaning of

1647:

It'd be great if those reading this page would simply add their yes or no, as well as reasoning if they feel it necessary. Let's see if there is any kind of overall agreement.

4310: 3912:, I will restrain myself and not do a fourth revert in return. But please, again, lets find a compromise. This edit war has no prospect of success. Let's try some alternative. 2167:

A court opinion from a high-court could be considered a secondary source in some cases. I would still prefer to have a scholarly source in which that court case is described.

5147:. That attorney general does a very good job of summing it up concisely, but can you explain how that government document, or Yaf's court document, meet the guidelines of 2958:

Look again. This is the older version from when the controversy started on May 16, 2007, when you started vandalizing the article. I am proposing we start anew from then.

4041:

I doubt #1 would work. #2 seems drastic. #3 might work. I confess that I don't know how to be more constructive, or more civil, but I can try and will accept advice.

2817: 2686:

Indeed, it is plainly obvious that language usage evolves over time. It would be more remarkable to claim that language usage does not change. I would like to see your

2107:

No, I'm using the Knowledge concept of secondary source, sources that "draw on primary sources to make generalizations or interpretive, analytical, or synthetic claims" (

895:

Please try again to understand me. I am concerned with the reader understanding the authority of that court, not understanding their statement. Do you understand me?

4256:

I also agree. I'm not sure which category I should respond in, since I've been involved heavily in the discussion recently, but haven't done any of the editing at all.

3491:

of the Constitution two hundred years ago, not what the current state of the law is. The two are by no means necessarily the same. But to answer your question, for

4474:

discredited. If we can't find references for it I'm not going to make a big fuss, I just think it would be a better article without this possible confusion. Thanks.

613:. The NRA source provided by Yaf seems to fail the WP:V policy. Surely if the Emerson quote is notable there will be a credible secondary source for you to use. 1340:

info but Knowledge policy. However, take not that I have not made any edits, so I don't know what affect the resolution would have without User:Yaf being involved.

1327:

For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Knowledge passage agrees with the primary source

129:

written by AKHIL AND VIKRAM AMAR. It describes that the Emerson court really on found one example of the 'personal guns' definition that existed prior to 1789.

4138:

No the current version is at the extreme edge of the edit war. I suggest we go with the neutral middle version proposed by PubliusFL two days ago, see this

593:

I appreciate that you grant that I may have a point about 'specialized knowledge' being required to understand direct quotes from court documents. Indeed I

4437:). I believe a good-faith reading of this article and references proves sufficient content for both "sides" to feel as though their views are represented. 645:, and you apply original research assuming it is true. The leading sentence prior to the quote and the quote does not comport with the last paragraph of 567:

is critical to understanding a court document. That is why a credible secondary source should be used. I have provided you with two, or find your own.

5178:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

5151:? In short, I do not see a 'reliable publication process' for either. They both are very likely "true", but regardless of truth, neither meet WP:ARS. 4987: 3560:

And for what purpose is the quote being used? I welcome your answer. I am guessing the answer is: To provide a pro-gun POV balance to meet the policy

466:

needs work, a better course of action is for you to edit it, rather than to keep deleting it wholesale, or suggesting that I "paint a rock". Thank you.

81: 76: 71: 59: 4960:

presentation and achieve an NPOV presentation of fact. Then, I propose that we additionally change paragraph four of the Three models section to read:

2599:

that backs up your 'most commonly' assertion? My claim that the meaning has evolved is not my original thought, but rather refer to my citation, quote:

836:

Also, instead of a plain revert, try to offer a compromise, that way we can work towards a settlement. The back and forth revert war is not working.

5130:

I'm not necessarily suggesting we use the whole thing, but I think it helps contribute to our understanding of the situation. It seems pretty concise.

4491:

O.k. no problem, I see your point. I will try to address this in a later mod from cited sources, if someone else doesn't get to it first. Thanks also.

4404:

was discredited. (If I am incorrect, please let me know. It needs to be corrected.) This repudiation is substantiated by the references. I call this a

951:

reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." It appears that the consensus is that the quote should stay. Have restored it once more.

796:

can solve the problem. Yaf reverted it in a micro-second, hardly enough time to read it, let alone consider it. I ask that you guys take a moment to

4590:

practicing academic historians, not 'all historians'. If you get a chance read page 246 of that book, they present an itemized list, naming names.

2920:

Simply stop vandalizing the article, removing properly-cited content that is needed to balance the POV of the article. Then, there is no edit war.

1497:

portion of the primary court document. The former carries a lot of weight, the later very little. Which is it? (And, the distinction is vital.)

1916:... i.e. citing a primary source to support a viewpoint. Find a secondary source that describe this issue instead. Surely there should be plentiful. 1783:

quoting directly from primary sources is the issue of editorializing, cherry-picking quotes, and quoting out of context, all of which would violate

2240:(I think) correctly indicates that sometimes it is not a good idea to directly quote from case law, because analysing a decision (and its value as 4314: 3927:

the Fifth Circuit stating that, "there are numerous instances of the phrase 'bear arms' being used to describe a civilian's carrying of arms"."--

512:

The burden of proof is on the editor Yaf to demonstrate that a website of the National Rifle Association is a source that meets the standards of

2505:

and now in modern usage it typically means a limited individual right to arms. This transition of meaning needs to be covered in the article.

2275:

WP contributors should, however, be careful not to offer what some general audience readers might misconstrue as a direct analysis of case law.

3495:

at least, phrasing it as a court quote isn't terribly important. That's why when the article was unprotected I restored your last paraphrase.

1614:

court said. But let's get over the somewhat ridiculous idea that quoting from a legal document is original research. It most certainly is not.

929:? Yes, a huge difference. Yaf says we should let the reader make an intelligent decision, but how can a reader know the difference between 242:

As an related issue, I am curious exactly which incidents are counted by the Court for their 'numerous incidents' claim. Have you seen that

4409:

are, I will be happy to elaborate, but on a user:talk page -- not here. This is one basic reason why earlier opposition to the snippet from

5169: 4290: 5057:

SaltyBoatr, you specifically are the one who used the word "fact" in your suggestion that a court ruling needed third party fact checking

4990:. I was unaware of this arbitration case, it having occurred roughly 6 months before I began to contribute to Knowledge. Thank you.) -- 1861:

Also, my concern about this risk of confusion has been repeatedly evaded. Let's resolve this dispute now, stop evading this key issue.

606:. I realize they may not be favorable to your POV, so you are welcome to find another. You might also check the Uviller and Merkel book 4720: 4716:

This thought, that law scholars and academic historians are taking opposite sides, is not just seen in Uviller and Merkel. This article

1100:

since the present wording copies ideas and content without properly citing source of who made the claim, which borders on plagiarism.

4668: 2777: 2743: 2731: 2719: 1875:

the court has authority to rule on this. Whether the court does have authority, or not, or to which extent, is original research.

3719:"...Thus the Circuit Court manages to craft a decision that is disappointment to both sides, and all the 'friends of the court'..." 4336: 908:

Have reverted the vandalism of blanking properly cited content without gaining consensus, restoring the 5th Circuit quote. (See:

47: 17: 1264:

Thanks for your reply. How is this article one of the 'rare occasions' which warrant usage of a primary source? This article is

4834: 2725:

For the Defense of Themselves and the State: The Original Intent and Judicial Interpretation of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

1813:

And, using a secondary credible source which describes the court decision could be soooo easy. There are several. The article

2078:

You confuse the academic concept of secondary source from the Knowledge concept of secondary source, they are different. See

1870:

Perhaps instead of just saying The Fifth Circuit Court, we could say, "The Fifth Circuit Court whose authority extends to..."

5119: 4970: 4948: 4771: 2937:

Try suggesting a compromise wording. Your repeated re-insertion of your text unchanged is not a way to find middle ground.

1960: 1835: 1089: 646: 610: 552: 109: 2007:

the sourcing of the leading sentence. I don't agree to include the leading sentence without credible secondary sourcing.

4373:

Isn't it POV to merely say the the Court's opinion was discredited, since there are also many sources that agree with it?

2332:

I have studied this a lot and do not see this scholarly difference. Please point specifically to what you are reading.

800:

and think about things before instantly reverting. Calling me a vandal does not help much either. We can work this out.

403:, however, would have been solely in defense of the state, it being presumably a militia (i.e., a non-individual) usage. 4676: 4660: 3166: 1469: 1440: 1291: 531:

distinction of authority. Please use a credible secondary source. I have provided two (see above), or find your own.

2535:

It is interesting that you need to misquote the 5th Circuit to make your point. They did not write 'commonly meant'.

2452:

That sound sensible to me. Move all US related stuff to the US section, summarize the whole article in the lead as per

2344: 2111:). That's exactly what an appellate court opinion does, therefore an appellate court opinion is a secondary source in 1907:

that at under common usage 'bear arms' was not exclusively restricted to bearing arms in military service. <ref: -->

4364:

of the article, I considered this dispute mitigated enough for me to considered it resolved. Thanks for the help.

4299:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

1936:

pro-gun POV should be represented. The wording and the cites are negotiable. But WP:NOR and WP:V are not negotiable.

1489:

The quote certainly is highly selective because it leaves to the reader's imagination whether it is quoted from the

1443:, the best and first option is avoidance. Simply using a credible secondary source could easily avoid this dispute. 477:

which synthesizes that court document. I found two, (the Amar and the Dorf Findlaw Writs) which are cited above.

139:

Meanwhile, while this is being discussed here, have restored the properly cited information back into the article.

38: 5000:

I am glad you are back Yaf. Could you please specifically explain how your proposed edit meets the guidelines of

5030:

Editors before you in this dispute have called the written word of a court 'a ruling', 'the holding', 'opinion',

4932: 4757: 4684: 3566:

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

1199: 287:

the 'self' meaning just beginning at the time of the early 19th Century and trending up until the present time.

399:

is self-evident that it means individual use, since the defense of one's self is inherently an individual use.

4966: 4767: 4343:

Stated most simply, Yaf has the burden of proof; and I dispute that Yaf has demonstrated that his proposed edit

1859:

Should the article create the risk of confusion about the authority of the court to the average reader, or not?

960:

Both you and PubliusFL have simply denied my complaint without addressing my point. Please address my point.

4272:

summary of the dispute. That way people responding to the RfC will have some clue of what is being discussed.

4192:

Then all involved editors, out of respect for the process keep relatively quiet waiting for editors' comments

4001:

Yaf, is this suggestion agreeable to you? Keeping in mind that the above example could be expanded further.--

2252:

and other minutiae that may not carry the full weight of law. Direct analysis of case law is seen by many as

4680: 4189:

Once that is done we place a notice for the RFC (I will do that to help you out and show you how it is done)

4165: 3948:

LWF says it is not a ruling. This confusion proves my point about risk of confusion to the average reader.

2558: 1078:

that at under common usage 'bear arms' was not exclusively restricted to bearing arms in military service.

326:, a credible secondary source, directly commenting on the Emerson 'bear arms' text written by Law Professor 4216:

Thanks, I will cooperate. I need some time, hopefully less than a day, to concisely compose my thoughts.

3165:

Simply denying my concern does not resolve my concern. Please suggest alternate wording. Let us practice

4636: 2773:, Book by Jan E Dizard, Robert Merrill Muth, and Stephen P. Andres, Jr.; New York University Press, 1999, 1066: 5034:' and now you call it 'facts'. Which is it? Or, more to the point, in the context of this dispute over 2341:

There is a major debate among scholars and judges involving two competing views of the Second Amendment.

1439:

the authority of that court. It would be much preferable to use a credible secondary source. Please read

4652: 1510: 5155: 5099: 5078: 5064: 5052: 5042: 5023: 5008: 4994: 4908: 4898: 4889: 4870: 4855: 4814: 4801: 4788: 4727: 4624: 4594: 4561: 4535: 4495: 4478: 4462: 4377: 4368: 4354: 4281: 4260: 4247: 4234: 4220: 4210: 4172: 4157: 4146: 4132: 4117: 4096: 4075: 4061: 4045: 4036: 4005: 3992: 3973: 3952: 3931: 3916: 3871: 3803: 3725: 3643: 3573: 3499: 3429: 3374: 3325: 3281: 3243: 3211: 3173: 3126: 3088: 3050: 3018: 2988: 2962: 2941: 2924: 2912: 2898: 2882: 2854: 2824: 2795: 2783: 2760: 2694: 2666: 2640: 2608: 2569: 2539: 2522: 2509: 2499: 2487: 2473: 2446: 2430: 2410: 2392: 2351: 2297: 2279: 2202: 2176: 2162: 2148: 2120: 2086: 2057: 2035: 2011: 1983: 1940: 1925: 1892: 1879: 1865: 1842: 1796: 1764: 1739: 1715: 1697: 1679: 1668: 1618: 1600: 1586: 1575: 1559: 1534: 1518: 1501: 1476: 1457: 1447: 1414: 1377: 1344: 1298: 1272: 1259: 1240: 1231: 1209: 1183: 1170: 1141: 1115: 1104: 1050: 1028: 1018: 997: 987: 969: 955: 941: 916: 899: 890: 877: 867: 840: 814: 804: 783: 744: 730: 720: 701: 684: 665: 636: 617: 587: 571: 545: 535: 520: 501: 481: 470: 450: 429: 407: 385: 374: 313: 291: 221: 198: 178: 157: 143: 133: 102: 5143:

Trying to focus these RfC comments back to the point of dispute. That is: meeting the guidelines of

4632: 4330: 4164:

appreciate that I find this to be not exactly a compromise? The truth is that per WP:V policy, see

5109: 5049: 4905: 4828: 4644: 4558: 4475: 4387: 4374: 4257: 4154: 4129: 3425:

Also, how do you know it was just a statement, not a ruling? Your assertion is original research.

3208: 3047: 2792: 2780: 2663: 2496: 2443: 2427: 2389: 2348: 1712: 1665: 1615: 1583: 1556: 1515: 1341: 1256: 1228: 1138: 909: 4894:

In other words, the court opinion is self-published, with no apparent third party fact checking?

2266:

references. Also the cite appears to enhance the balance of article content, as already mentioned.

5113: 4794: 2388:

for other sources as well. I think it's very clear that there isn't a consensus on this opinion.

2321: 797: 4876:

publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand" under

2690:

credible sourcing of the POV that 'bear arms' has always meant 'an individual right to arms'.

2244:) can be complicated, even for lawyers. For example, you have to be careful to distinguish the 5127: 4983: 2774: 2740: 2728: 2716: 2241: 1832: 607: 2707:

May I suggest you check these sources? It will surely yield the information you are needing:

4656: 4110: 2385: 1253:

there are rare occasions when they may rely on primary sources (for example, legal cases).

5202: 5152: 5088: 5039: 5005: 4895: 4867: 4798: 4724: 4628: 4591: 4532: 4365: 4351: 4326: 4277: 4230: 4217: 4206: 4169: 4143: 4114: 4092: 4072: 4057: 4042: 4032: 3989: 3949: 3913: 3868: 3722: 3570: 3426: 3322: 3240: 3170: 3085: 2985: 2938: 2909: 2895: 2879: 2821: 2756: 2691: 2684:"Law and language have evolved; today it is common to speak of nonmilitary arms-bearing. " 2605: 2601:"Law and language have evolved; today it is common to speak of nonmilitary arms-bearing. " 2536: 2506: 2484: 2469: 2407: 2333: 2294: 2253: 2237: 2199: 2172: 2158: 2144: 2083: 2054: 2008: 1937: 1921: 1876: 1862: 1839: 1817: 1792: 1760: 1694: 1597: 1572: 1531: 1498: 1473: 1444: 1411: 1295: 1269: 1237: 1206: 1112: 1047: 1015: 994: 966: 961: 938: 896: 874: 837: 811: 801: 780: 727: 717: 698: 689:

Thank you for acknowledging that my point is correct. Indeed, directly quoting the court

662: 651: 627:

that "that does not comport with WP:NOR," but I don't see any support for your contention

614: 568: 557: 532: 517: 478: 447: 382: 371: 327: 288: 195: 175: 130: 99: 1664:

Again, let everyone know where you stand, and maybe we can build some kind of consensus.

1236:

You write 'specifically listed', but I just looked and do not see it. Be more specific.

5096: 4886: 4881: 4852: 4842: 4824: 4672: 4664: 4640: 4492: 4459: 4434: 4244: 3800: 3640: 3561: 3496: 3278: 2851: 2453: 2276: 2117: 2032: 1454: 1155: 883: 741: 681: 633: 584: 542: 4717: 5148: 5144: 5035: 5001: 4944: 4926: 4863: 4751: 4458:

analysis have already been made, in order to arrive at some kind of compromise here.

4347: 4179: 3564:. Yet, WP:NPOV is explict that only sources that meet WP:V are allowed. Per WP:V, 2713:

A Right to Bear Arms: State and Federal Bills of Rights and Constitutional Guarantees

1956: 1784: 1660:

3. Does the 5th circuit opinion increase a users understanding of the subject matter.

1165: 1085: 657: 563: 458: 113: 2345:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/13/AR2007031301508.html

1268:

about a legal case. It would be much easier to just use a secondary source instead.

4877: 4847: 4648: 2878:

passages in your books are you citing, please mention page numbers and/or quotes.

2562: 2249: 2108: 1913: 1732: 1043: 4623:

They itemize a list of practicing academic historians and find only one proponet,

2680: 2603: 1821: 1814: 1549: 604: 602: 324: 126: 4017:

I can protect the article for one week so that you can try and find common ground

5075: 5061: 5020: 4810:

It would be rather redundant to have the same quote repeated in both sections.--

2687: 2596: 1828: 1689: 1545: 978:

document. I found it only while searching for another source in addition to the

513: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

2380: 370:

the predominate usage during that time period was in the context of military.

5268: 5257: 5246: 5235: 5224: 5213: 5191: 4273: 4226: 4202: 4088: 4053: 4028: 2752: 2465: 2168: 2154: 2140: 1917: 1824: 1788: 1756: 1652:

difference on this issue, that it's not clearly resolved in either direction?

601:

Here are two credible secondary sources addressing the Emerson court document

5038:

how can an editor know which it is, without the risk of original research?

3207:

three. For example the more recent US Court of Appeals Parker case 04-7041.

623:

I contend that an appellate court decision is a secondary source. You keep

1553: 1290:. User:Arthurrh, you appear new to this dispute, will you agree to follow 647:

Knowledge:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources

553:

Knowledge:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources

4991: 4922: 4811: 4785: 4774:, both of which introduce principles of an individual right to firearms, 4747: 4168:, the entire passage can be moved to the talk page during negotiations. 4002: 3970: 3928: 3371: 3123: 3015: 2959: 2921: 2637: 2566: 2519: 1980: 1889: 1736: 1676: 1374: 1180: 1161: 1101: 1025: 984: 952: 937:? Special knowledge is required for the reader to know the difference. 913: 887: 864: 498: 467: 426: 404: 310: 218: 154: 140: 1434:

Risk of misunderstanding is at the heart of WP:NOR. Quoting from WP:NOR

4631:(an undergraduate business school). Yet they identify many opponents: 2245: 2079: 983:

odd appearance only in your interpretation. Please assume good faith.

2256:, hence law review articles or other published works may be necessary. 1888:

It's hardly original research to say where a court has jurisdiction.--

1693:

by Uviller + Merckle which has a whole chapter discussing this case.

697:. That is why I insist on a secondary source versus a direct quote. 2347:, so the Washington Post seems to think there is a scholarly debate. 2316:

that there is a difference of opinion in the US, and how both sides.

1282:

documents. The average reader does not know the distinction between

4023:

You can engage constructively and civilly without admin intervention

3046:

of one side the the argument, then we must judge the other as well.

2339:

Here's another one, it's from a newspaper, so maybe you'll like it.

1511:

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cpub%5C99/99-10331.cr0.wpd.pdf

1472:? If yes; step 1, could you suggest a way to avoid this dispute? 1179:

research is not at stake here, per the comments above. Thank you.

4178:

This is what you can do: Ask for other editors to comment via the

2153:

For verifiability, please add the original quote as a footnote.

2139:

There is no access to the source provided, so I cannot comment.

765:? Using the word 'opinion' without attribution violates WP:NOR. 670:

I am applying no original research -- the same "if" applies to

4360:

Considering the recent work by editor Dreftymac, resulting in

4268:

Saltyboatr: Please consider replacing your bullet points with

4186:

Each involved editor makes a short statement about the dispute

2908:

Can we find a compromise, and avoid continuing the edit war?

2739:. Book by Roberst J. Spitzer; Chatham House Publishers, 1998, 1644:

prefer to give them the reference and make up their own mind.

25: 4982:

that said I should read the talk page of permanently-blocked

4793:

Does your proposal include deleting the Yaf passage from the

921:

A little progress, thanks. Is there any difference between

364:

possession distinct from the military notion of arms-bearing.

4153:

for use in the US section rather than the current location.

2904:

Can we find a compromise, and avoid continuing the edit war?

5128:

http://www.attorneygeneral.state.tn.us/op/2003/OP/OP165.pdf

4904:

quoting from the court, which may or may not be reliable.

4198:

And then, hopefully, you can find an agreeable compromise.

1945:

Precisely. Which is why I favor, instead, using the form,

4866:. Compliance with WP:ARS is the basis of this dispute. 4433:

of those who agree with the Emerson analysis. (See e.g.,

3084:

have trouble understanding authority of court documents.

2360:

the court, because it stands in opposition to your view.

5203:

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=45

5093: 5058: 4361: 4344: 4139: 3946: 3943: 3909: 3906: 3903: 3900: 2591: 2464:

in the US section and other country-specific sections.

1855: 1568: 824: 794: 714: 5019:

are uncitable without a third party examining them. -

2715:, Book by Stephen P. Halbrook; Greenwood Press, 1989, 2116:

about other concepts of primary v. secondary sources.

661:

for appellate opinions, requiring special knowledge.

2789:

Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States

2727:

Book by Clayton E. Cramer; Praeger Publishers, 1994,

5126:

Here's an interesting summary of the situation from

4396:

the article and references do not state the court's

4311:

Knowledge:Requests for comment/Society, law, and sex

4109:

I appreciate your help. Though you offer me only a

2679:

Not at all original research. See the Amar article

757:

Is the legal status of the Emerson quote 'opinion',

1857:, is in the article. Rather, the dispute here is: 2765:Yet another source, showing a different opinion - 1124:WP:NOR seems not to be what you suggest. It says: 882:One instance of the policy on quotes is found at: 695:comment on what the holding of U.S. v. Emerson was 649:. A reader needs to know the difference between 381:of self, held a clear militia/military context. 1410:Could you suggest a way to avoid this dispute? 1904: 1656:Please check in on your opinion on this issue. 1550:http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20011031.html 4020:I can block a couple of editors for disruption 323:Also, of interest is this Findlaw-Writ article 1546:http://rpc.senate.gov/_files/GUNSmc101701.pdf 1196:Please do not misuse the word 'consensus'. 1111:dispute resolution to find that compromise? 8: 4289:The following discussion is preserved as an 2381:http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm 5269:http://laws.findlaw.com/5th/9910331cr0.html 5258:http://laws.findlaw.com/5th/9910331cr0.html 5247:http://laws.findlaw.com/5th/9910331cr0.html 5236:http://laws.findlaw.com/5th/9910331cr0.html 5225:http://laws.findlaw.com/5th/9910331cr0.html 5214:http://laws.findlaw.com/5th/9910331cr0.html 5192:http://laws.findlaw.com/5th/9910331cr0.html 4513:of disagreement is a much different matter. 4449:If you have any references *defending* the 4182:process. I have created a section below. 2322:Right_to_bear_arms#United_States_of_America 5004:? Your reply would be helpful, thanks. 4988:Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Mlorrey 4166:Knowledge:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence 2320:There is already a US section, see here: 2370:below in earlier discussion on this page. 170:Yaf, neither I nor the article claims it 5168:The above discussion is preserved as an 4969:and the Ninth Circuit court 2007 ruling 4770:and the Ninth Circuit court 2007 ruling 2328:that argues against the oppossing view. 1554:http://www.cato.org/dailys/10-27-01.html 508:citation from National Rifle Association 487:As to the cite for the word "observed", 5184: 4586:Uviller and Merkel limit their list to 4315:Knowledge:Requests for comment/Politics 2456:, and expand on significant viewpoints 1509:Perhaps a better reference for this is 1046:so we can actually find a compromise? 420:If you wish to investigate further the 3899:In the face of four quick Yaf reverts 1831:. Also, the book Uviler & Merkel 264:Everybody acknowledges that there are 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 4400:was discredited. It says the court's 7: 3945:, LWF calls it a 'ruling'. Yet here 93:Emerson quote still needs some work. 4721:Organization of American Historians 1567:Just to be clear, the text in this 5013:Comments by respondents to the RfC 4723:essentially says the same thing. 4669:University of Tulsa College of Law 24: 3922:Perhaps the small mention in the 341:documents from the founding era.) 4776:with the Fifth Circuit stating, 4243:I agree, an RfC is a good idea. 29: 18:Talk:Right to keep and bear arms 910:WP:vandalism#Types of vandalism 4971:Parker v. District of Columbia 4949:United States Court of Appeals 4772:Parker v. District of Columbia 1961:United States Court of Appeals 1090:United States Court of Appeals 884:Wp:cite#When_you_quote_someone 713:PubliusFL made a recent revert 693:easily be read by a reader to 551:Look at the last paragraph of 110:United States Court of Appeals 1: 3988:I support LWF's suggestion. 2254:beyond the scope of Knowledge 1468:PubliusFL, will you agree to 1044:dispute resolution procedures 779:Please answer my question. 174:meant military service. 4677:George Washington University 4661:University of North Carolina 4320:Comments by involved editors 1441:Knowledge:Resolving disputes 1373:I would gladly be involved. 397:In defense of self and state 3713:'failures' of Emerson from 2737:The Politics of Gun Control 5287: 4685:Texas A & M University 4348:generally accepted sources 497:from the cited reference. 5156:19:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC) 5100:17:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC) 5079:17:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC) 5065:00:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC) 5053:23:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC) 5043:22:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC) 5024:21:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC) 5009:07:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC) 4995:06:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC) 4909:20:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC) 4899:20:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC) 4890:20:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC) 4871:19:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC) 4856:17:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC) 4815:19:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC) 4802:16:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC) 4789:00:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC) 4728:15:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC) 4595:03:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC) 4562:02:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC) 4536:02:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC) 4496:22:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC) 4479:21:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC) 4463:21:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC) 4435:WP:NPOV#Article_structure 4378:20:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC) 4369:19:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC) 4355:00:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC) 4282:00:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC) 4261:21:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC) 4248:20:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC) 4235:20:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC) 4221:20:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC) 4211:18:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC) 4173:18:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC) 4158:17:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC) 4147:17:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC) 4133:17:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC) 4118:16:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC) 4097:16:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC) 4076:15:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC) 4062:03:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC) 4046:01:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC) 4037:23:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 4006:16:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC) 3993:15:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC) 3974:17:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC) 3953:17:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC) 3932:03:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC) 3917:22:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 3872:02:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC) 3804:20:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC) 3726:17:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC) 3717:points of view, writing: 3644:17:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC) 3574:16:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC) 3500:14:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC) 3430:02:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC) 3375:02:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC) 3326:01:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC) 3282:23:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 3244:22:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 3212:21:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 3174:22:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 3127:21:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 3089:21:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 3051:21:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 3019:21:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 2989:21:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 2963:21:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 2942:21:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 2925:21:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 2913:21:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 2899:20:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 2883:01:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC) 2855:16:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC) 2825:16:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC) 2796:20:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 2784:20:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 2771:Guns in America: A Reader 2761:19:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 2695:20:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 2667:19:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 2641:21:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 2609:20:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 2570:19:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 2540:18:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 2523:18:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 2510:18:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 2500:17:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 2488:17:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 2474:17:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 2447:17:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 2431:21:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 2411:20:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 2393:20:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 2379:Another useful source is 2352:00:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC) 2298:20:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 2280:18:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 2225:Comment from an outsider: 2203:17:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 2177:17:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 2163:17:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 2149:17:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 2121:17:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 2087:17:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 2058:17:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 2036:17:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 2012:17:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 1984:17:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 1941:17:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 1926:16:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 1912:... is a good example of 1893:17:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 1880:16:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 1866:15:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 1843:15:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 1797:15:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 1765:15:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 1740:22:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 1716:23:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 1698:21:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 1680:22:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 1669:21:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 1619:21:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 1601:21:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 1587:21:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 1576:21:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 1560:21:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 1535:21:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 1519:20:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 1502:20:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 1477:20:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 1458:19:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 1448:19:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 1415:19:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 1378:18:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 1345:18:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 1299:18:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 1273:19:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 1260:18:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 1241:18:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 1232:17:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 1210:17:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 1200:Consensus decision-making 1184:03:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 1171:00:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 1142:00:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 891:23:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC) 878:17:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC) 868:18:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC) 841:17:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC) 815:16:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC) 805:21:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC) 784:20:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC) 745:18:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC) 731:17:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC) 721:17:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC) 702:20:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC) 685:18:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC) 666:17:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC) 637:17:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC) 618:19:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC) 588:18:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC) 572:17:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC) 546:16:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC) 536:15:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC) 521:15:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC) 502:14:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC) 482:15:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC) 471:05:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC) 451:13:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC) 430:07:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC) 408:05:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC) 108:pasted below-------- The 5175:Please do not modify it. 4967:United States v. Emerson 4768:United States v. Emerson 4413:actually had some merit. 4296:Please do not modify it. 1116:23:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 1105:21:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 1051:17:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC) 1029:03:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC) 1019:14:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC) 998:17:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC) 988:04:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC) 970:16:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC) 956:00:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC) 942:23:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC) 917:22:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC) 900:20:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC) 386:16:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC) 375:16:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC) 314:21:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC) 292:16:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC) 222:21:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC) 199:15:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC) 179:15:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC) 158:04:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC) 144:04:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC) 134:22:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC) 103:22:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC) 1779:One of the reasons for 793:Perhaps this compromise 116:observed in 2001 that: 5140: 4956: 4781: 4681:Lawrence Delbert Cress 4637:University of Oklahoma 4012:You have three options 1969: 1910: 1329: 1255: 1249: 1098: 496: 367: 335:Founding Era Documents 122: 5132: 4952: 4777: 4653:Ohio State University 2565:stuff needs to stop. 1965: 1325: 1251: 1245: 1094: 488: 332: 118: 42:of past discussions. 4951:wrote in 2001 that: 2483:with the Spanish.) 1963:wrote in 2001 that: 1092:wrote in 2001 that: 853:Simply copying text 4645:Stanford University 2217:Third-party comment 2082:for more on this. 1838:is a good source. 401:In defense of state 3167:dispute resolution 2308:Other Basic Issues 1470:dispute resolution 1292:dispute resolution 4984:User talk:Mlorrey 4280: 4233: 4209: 4095: 4060: 4035: 2759: 2472: 2242:binding authority 2175: 2161: 2147: 1924: 1816:by law professor 1795: 1763: 1169: 87: 86: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 5278: 5271: 5266: 5260: 5255: 5249: 5244: 5238: 5233: 5227: 5222: 5216: 5211: 5205: 5200: 5194: 5189: 5177: 4657:Don Higginbotham 4625:Joyce Lee Malcom 4298: 4276: 4229: 4205: 4091: 4056: 4031: 2755: 2559:WP:Wikilawyering 2468: 2386:second amendment 2171: 2157: 2143: 1920: 1791: 1759: 1159: 1071: 1065: 68: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 5286: 5285: 5281: 5280: 5279: 5277: 5276: 5275: 5274: 5267: 5263: 5256: 5252: 5245: 5241: 5234: 5230: 5223: 5219: 5212: 5208: 5201: 5197: 5190: 5186: 5182: 5173: 5124: 4937: 4848:reliable source 4839: 4762: 4633:Robert Shalhope 4629:Bentley College 4425:Given that the 4341: 4307: 4294: 4225:Sure, no rush. 4014: 2906: 2310: 2219: 2080:this discussion 1820:and the article 1818:Michael C. Dorf 1688:Please re-read 1631: 1491:ratio decidendi 1333:ratio decidendi 1284:ratio decidendi 1069: 1063: 1061: 931:ratio decidendi 923:ratio decidendi 761:, or 'ruling', 759:ratio decidendi 652:ratio decidendi 558:ratio decidendi 528: 510: 328:Michael C. Dorf 95: 64: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 5284: 5282: 5273: 5272: 5261: 5250: 5239: 5228: 5217: 5206: 5195: 5183: 5181: 5180: 5164: 5163: 5159: 5158: 5138:this country. 5123: 5106: 5105: 5104: 5103: 5102: 5082: 5081: 5070: 5069: 5068: 5067: 5055: 5027: 5026: 5015: 5014: 5011: 4936: 4919: 4918: 4917: 4916: 4915: 4914: 4913: 4912: 4911: 4838: 4821: 4820: 4819: 4818: 4817: 4805: 4804: 4761: 4744: 4743: 4742: 4741: 4740: 4739: 4738: 4737: 4736: 4735: 4734: 4733: 4732: 4731: 4730: 4701: 4700: 4699: 4698: 4697: 4696: 4695: 4694: 4693: 4692: 4691: 4690: 4689: 4688: 4673:Lois Schwoerer 4665:Paul Finkelman 4641:Jack N. Rakove 4608: 4607: 4606: 4605: 4604: 4603: 4602: 4601: 4600: 4599: 4598: 4597: 4573: 4572: 4571: 4570: 4569: 4568: 4567: 4566: 4565: 4564: 4545: 4544: 4543: 4542: 4541: 4540: 4539: 4538: 4521: 4520: 4519: 4518: 4517: 4516: 4515: 4514: 4503: 4502: 4501: 4500: 4499: 4498: 4484: 4483: 4482: 4481: 4468: 4467: 4466: 4465: 4441: 4440: 4439: 4438: 4423:Major nitpick: 4417: 4416: 4415: 4414: 4394:Minor nitpick: 4391: 4381: 4380: 4371: 4350:guidelines. 4340: 4323: 4322: 4321: 4309:RfCs posted @ 4306: 4303: 4302: 4301: 4285: 4266: 4265: 4264: 4263: 4251: 4250: 4240: 4239: 4238: 4237: 4200: 4199: 4196: 4193: 4190: 4187: 4176: 4175: 4150: 4149: 4125: 4124: 4123: 4122: 4121: 4120: 4102: 4101: 4100: 4099: 4081: 4080: 4079: 4078: 4065: 4064: 4025: 4024: 4021: 4018: 4013: 4010: 4009: 4008: 3998: 3997: 3996: 3995: 3983: 3982: 3981: 3980: 3979: 3978: 3977: 3976: 3960: 3959: 3958: 3957: 3956: 3955: 3935: 3934: 3897: 3896: 3895: 3894: 3893: 3892: 3891: 3890: 3889: 3888: 3887: 3886: 3885: 3884: 3883: 3882: 3881: 3880: 3879: 3878: 3877: 3876: 3875: 3874: 3841: 3840: 3839: 3838: 3837: 3836: 3835: 3834: 3833: 3832: 3831: 3830: 3829: 3828: 3827: 3826: 3825: 3824: 3823: 3822: 3821: 3820: 3819: 3818: 3817: 3816: 3815: 3814: 3813: 3812: 3811: 3810: 3809: 3808: 3807: 3806: 3761: 3760: 3759: 3758: 3757: 3756: 3755: 3754: 3753: 3752: 3751: 3750: 3749: 3748: 3747: 3746: 3745: 3744: 3743: 3742: 3741: 3740: 3739: 3738: 3737: 3736: 3735: 3734: 3733: 3732: 3731: 3730: 3729: 3728: 3677: 3676: 3675: 3674: 3673: 3672: 3671: 3670: 3669: 3668: 3667: 3666: 3665: 3664: 3663: 3662: 3661: 3660: 3659: 3658: 3657: 3656: 3655: 3654: 3653: 3652: 3651: 3650: 3649: 3648: 3647: 3646: 3605: 3604: 3603: 3602: 3601: 3600: 3599: 3598: 3597: 3596: 3595: 3594: 3593: 3592: 3591: 3590: 3589: 3588: 3587: 3586: 3585: 3584: 3583: 3582: 3581: 3580: 3579: 3578: 3577: 3576: 3529: 3528: 3527: 3526: 3525: 3524: 3523: 3522: 3521: 3520: 3519: 3518: 3517: 3516: 3515: 3514: 3513: 3512: 3511: 3510: 3509: 3508: 3507: 3506: 3505: 3504: 3503: 3502: 3457: 3456: 3455: 3454: 3453: 3452: 3451: 3450: 3449: 3448: 3447: 3446: 3445: 3444: 3443: 3442: 3441: 3440: 3439: 3438: 3437: 3436: 3435: 3434: 3433: 3432: 3398: 3397: 3396: 3395: 3394: 3393: 3392: 3391: 3390: 3389: 3388: 3387: 3386: 3385: 3384: 3383: 3382: 3381: 3380: 3379: 3378: 3377: 3347: 3346: 3345: 3344: 3343: 3342: 3341: 3340: 3339: 3338: 3337: 3336: 3335: 3334: 3333: 3332: 3331: 3330: 3329: 3328: 3299: 3298: 3297: 3296: 3295: 3294: 3293: 3292: 3291: 3290: 3289: 3288: 3287: 3286: 3285: 3284: 3259: 3258: 3257: 3256: 3255: 3254: 3253: 3252: 3251: 3250: 3249: 3248: 3247: 3246: 3223: 3222: 3221: 3220: 3219: 3218: 3217: 3216: 3215: 3214: 3195: 3194: 3193: 3192: 3191: 3190: 3189: 3188: 3187: 3186: 3185: 3184: 3183: 3182: 3181: 3180: 3179: 3178: 3177: 3176: 3144: 3143: 3142: 3141: 3140: 3139: 3138: 3137: 3136: 3135: 3134: 3133: 3132: 3131: 3130: 3129: 3104: 3103: 3102: 3101: 3100: 3099: 3098: 3097: 3096: 3095: 3094: 3093: 3092: 3091: 3064: 3063: 3062: 3061: 3060: 3059: 3058: 3057: 3056: 3055: 3054: 3053: 3032: 3031: 3030: 3029: 3028: 3027: 3026: 3025: 3024: 3023: 3022: 3021: 3000: 2999: 2998: 2997: 2996: 2995: 2994: 2993: 2992: 2991: 2972: 2971: 2970: 2969: 2968: 2967: 2966: 2965: 2949: 2948: 2947: 2946: 2945: 2944: 2930: 2929: 2928: 2927: 2905: 2902: 2892: 2891: 2890: 2889: 2888: 2887: 2886: 2885: 2868: 2867: 2866: 2865: 2864: 2863: 2862: 2861: 2860: 2859: 2858: 2857: 2836: 2835: 2834: 2833: 2832: 2831: 2830: 2829: 2828: 2827: 2805: 2804: 2803: 2802: 2801: 2800: 2799: 2798: 2786: 2763: 2750: 2749: 2748: 2747: 2746: 2734: 2722: 2702: 2701: 2700: 2699: 2698: 2697: 2672: 2671: 2670: 2669: 2656: 2655: 2654: 2653: 2652: 2651: 2650: 2649: 2648: 2647: 2646: 2645: 2644: 2643: 2620: 2619: 2618: 2617: 2616: 2615: 2614: 2613: 2612: 2611: 2579: 2578: 2577: 2576: 2575: 2574: 2573: 2572: 2547: 2546: 2545: 2544: 2543: 2542: 2528: 2527: 2526: 2525: 2493: 2492: 2491: 2490: 2477: 2476: 2440: 2438: 2437: 2436: 2435: 2434: 2433: 2418: 2417: 2416: 2415: 2414: 2413: 2398: 2397: 2396: 2395: 2374: 2373: 2372: 2371: 2364: 2363: 2362: 2361: 2337: 2336: 2325: 2324: 2309: 2306: 2305: 2304: 2303: 2302: 2301: 2300: 2285: 2284: 2283: 2282: 2270: 2269: 2268: 2267: 2260: 2259: 2258: 2257: 2232: 2231: 2230: 2229: 2218: 2215: 2214: 2213: 2212: 2211: 2210: 2209: 2208: 2207: 2206: 2205: 2186: 2185: 2184: 2183: 2182: 2181: 2180: 2179: 2151: 2132: 2131: 2130: 2129: 2128: 2127: 2126: 2125: 2124: 2123: 2096: 2095: 2094: 2093: 2092: 2091: 2090: 2089: 2069: 2068: 2067: 2066: 2065: 2064: 2063: 2062: 2061: 2060: 2041: 2040: 2039: 2038: 2025: 2024: 2023: 2022: 2021: 2020: 2019: 2018: 2017: 2016: 2015: 2014: 1993: 1992: 1991: 1990: 1989: 1988: 1987: 1986: 1953: 1952: 1951: 1950: 1949: 1948: 1947: 1946: 1903: 1902: 1898: 1897: 1896: 1895: 1883: 1882: 1852: 1851: 1850: 1849: 1848: 1847: 1846: 1845: 1804: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1772: 1771: 1770: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1747: 1746: 1745: 1744: 1743: 1742: 1723: 1722: 1721: 1720: 1719: 1718: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1683: 1682: 1662: 1661: 1654: 1653: 1641: 1640: 1630: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1624: 1623: 1622: 1621: 1606: 1605: 1604: 1603: 1590: 1589: 1565: 1564: 1563: 1562: 1538: 1537: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1484: 1483: 1482: 1481: 1480: 1479: 1461: 1460: 1432: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1428: 1427: 1426: 1425: 1424: 1423: 1422: 1421: 1420: 1419: 1418: 1417: 1393: 1392: 1391: 1390: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1386: 1385: 1384: 1383: 1382: 1381: 1380: 1358: 1357: 1356: 1355: 1354: 1353: 1352: 1351: 1350: 1349: 1348: 1347: 1310: 1309: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1305: 1304: 1303: 1302: 1301: 1279: 1278: 1277: 1276: 1275: 1217: 1216: 1215: 1214: 1213: 1212: 1189: 1188: 1187: 1186: 1147: 1146: 1145: 1144: 1134: 1133: 1132: 1131: 1130: 1119: 1118: 1060: 1057: 1056: 1055: 1054: 1053: 1040:orbiter dictum 1032: 1031: 1011: 1010: 1009: 1008: 1007: 1006: 1005: 1004: 1003: 1002: 1001: 1000: 948: 947: 946: 945: 944: 906: 905: 904: 903: 902: 846: 845: 844: 843: 831: 830: 829: 828: 818: 817: 791: 790: 789: 788: 787: 786: 771: 770: 769: 768: 767: 766: 750: 749: 748: 747: 734: 733: 711: 710: 709: 708: 707: 706: 705: 704: 641:That is a big 591: 590: 549: 548: 527: 524: 509: 506: 505: 504: 474: 473: 435: 434: 433: 432: 415: 414: 413: 412: 411: 410: 389: 388: 321: 320: 319: 318: 317: 316: 301: 300: 299: 298: 297: 296: 295: 294: 277: 276: 275: 274: 273: 272: 271: 270: 255: 254: 253: 252: 251: 250: 249: 248: 233: 232: 231: 230: 229: 228: 227: 226: 225: 224: 206: 205: 204: 203: 202: 201: 186: 185: 184: 183: 182: 181: 163: 162: 161: 160: 147: 146: 123: 106: 94: 91: 89: 85: 84: 79: 74: 69: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5283: 5270: 5265: 5262: 5259: 5254: 5251: 5248: 5243: 5240: 5237: 5232: 5229: 5226: 5221: 5218: 5215: 5210: 5207: 5204: 5199: 5196: 5193: 5188: 5185: 5179: 5176: 5171: 5166: 5165: 5161: 5160: 5157: 5154: 5150: 5146: 5142: 5141: 5139: 5136: 5131: 5129: 5121: 5118: 5115: 5111: 5107: 5101: 5098: 5094: 5090: 5086: 5085: 5084: 5083: 5080: 5077: 5072: 5071: 5066: 5063: 5059: 5056: 5054: 5051: 5046: 5045: 5044: 5041: 5037: 5033: 5029: 5028: 5025: 5022: 5017: 5016: 5012: 5010: 5007: 5003: 4999: 4998: 4997: 4996: 4993: 4989: 4985: 4981: 4975: 4974: 4972: 4968: 4961: 4957: 4955: 4950: 4946: 4945:Fifth Circuit 4941: 4934: 4931: 4928: 4924: 4920: 4910: 4907: 4902: 4901: 4900: 4897: 4893: 4892: 4891: 4888: 4883: 4879: 4874: 4873: 4872: 4869: 4865: 4860: 4859: 4858: 4857: 4854: 4849: 4844: 4836: 4833: 4830: 4826: 4822: 4816: 4813: 4809: 4808: 4807: 4806: 4803: 4800: 4796: 4792: 4791: 4790: 4787: 4782: 4780: 4773: 4769: 4765: 4759: 4756: 4753: 4749: 4745: 4729: 4726: 4722: 4718: 4715: 4714: 4713: 4712: 4711: 4710: 4709: 4708: 4707: 4706: 4705: 4704: 4703: 4702: 4686: 4682: 4678: 4674: 4670: 4666: 4662: 4658: 4654: 4650: 4646: 4642: 4638: 4634: 4630: 4626: 4622: 4621: 4620: 4619: 4618: 4617: 4616: 4615: 4614: 4613: 4612: 4611: 4610: 4609: 4596: 4593: 4589: 4585: 4584: 4583: 4582: 4581: 4580: 4579: 4578: 4577: 4576: 4575: 4574: 4563: 4560: 4555: 4554: 4553: 4552: 4551: 4550: 4549: 4548: 4547: 4546: 4537: 4534: 4529: 4528: 4527: 4526: 4525: 4524: 4523: 4522: 4511: 4510: 4509: 4508: 4507: 4506: 4505: 4504: 4497: 4494: 4490: 4489: 4488: 4487: 4486: 4485: 4480: 4477: 4472: 4471: 4470: 4469: 4464: 4461: 4457: 4452: 4448: 4445: 4444: 4443: 4442: 4436: 4432: 4428: 4424: 4421: 4420: 4419: 4418: 4412: 4407: 4403: 4399: 4395: 4392: 4389: 4385: 4384: 4383: 4382: 4379: 4376: 4372: 4370: 4367: 4363: 4359: 4358: 4357: 4356: 4353: 4349: 4345: 4338: 4335: 4332: 4328: 4324: 4319: 4318: 4317: 4316: 4312: 4304: 4300: 4297: 4292: 4287: 4286: 4284: 4283: 4279: 4275: 4271: 4262: 4259: 4255: 4254: 4253: 4252: 4249: 4246: 4242: 4241: 4236: 4232: 4228: 4224: 4223: 4222: 4219: 4215: 4214: 4213: 4212: 4208: 4204: 4197: 4194: 4191: 4188: 4185: 4184: 4183: 4181: 4174: 4171: 4167: 4162: 4161: 4160: 4159: 4156: 4148: 4145: 4141: 4137: 4136: 4135: 4134: 4131: 4119: 4116: 4112: 4108: 4107: 4106: 4105: 4104: 4103: 4098: 4094: 4090: 4085: 4084: 4083: 4082: 4077: 4074: 4069: 4068: 4067: 4066: 4063: 4059: 4055: 4050: 4049: 4048: 4047: 4044: 4039: 4038: 4034: 4030: 4022: 4019: 4016: 4015: 4011: 4007: 4004: 4000: 3999: 3994: 3991: 3987: 3986: 3985: 3984: 3975: 3972: 3968: 3967: 3966: 3965: 3964: 3963: 3962: 3961: 3954: 3951: 3947: 3944: 3941: 3940: 3939: 3938: 3937: 3936: 3933: 3930: 3925: 3921: 3920: 3919: 3918: 3915: 3911: 3908: 3905: 3902: 3873: 3870: 3865: 3864: 3863: 3862: 3861: 3860: 3859: 3858: 3857: 3856: 3855: 3854: 3853: 3852: 3851: 3850: 3849: 3848: 3847: 3846: 3845: 3844: 3843: 3842: 3805: 3802: 3797: 3796: 3795: 3794: 3793: 3792: 3791: 3790: 3789: 3788: 3787: 3786: 3785: 3784: 3783: 3782: 3781: 3780: 3779: 3778: 3777: 3776: 3775: 3774: 3773: 3772: 3771: 3770: 3769: 3768: 3767: 3766: 3765: 3764: 3763: 3762: 3727: 3724: 3720: 3716: 3711: 3710: 3709: 3708: 3707: 3706: 3705: 3704: 3703: 3702: 3701: 3700: 3699: 3698: 3697: 3696: 3695: 3694: 3693: 3692: 3691: 3690: 3689: 3688: 3687: 3686: 3685: 3684: 3683: 3682: 3681: 3680: 3679: 3678: 3645: 3642: 3637: 3636: 3635: 3634: 3633: 3632: 3631: 3630: 3629: 3628: 3627: 3626: 3625: 3624: 3623: 3622: 3621: 3620: 3619: 3618: 3617: 3616: 3615: 3614: 3613: 3612: 3611: 3610: 3609: 3608: 3607: 3606: 3575: 3572: 3567: 3563: 3559: 3558: 3557: 3556: 3555: 3554: 3553: 3552: 3551: 3550: 3549: 3548: 3547: 3546: 3545: 3544: 3543: 3542: 3541: 3540: 3539: 3538: 3537: 3536: 3535: 3534: 3533: 3532: 3531: 3530: 3501: 3498: 3494: 3490: 3485: 3484: 3483: 3482: 3481: 3480: 3479: 3478: 3477: 3476: 3475: 3474: 3473: 3472: 3471: 3470: 3469: 3468: 3467: 3466: 3465: 3464: 3463: 3462: 3461: 3460: 3459: 3458: 3431: 3428: 3424: 3423: 3422: 3421: 3420: 3419: 3418: 3417: 3416: 3415: 3414: 3413: 3412: 3411: 3410: 3409: 3408: 3407: 3406: 3405: 3404: 3403: 3402: 3401: 3400: 3399: 3376: 3373: 3369: 3368: 3367: 3366: 3365: 3364: 3363: 3362: 3361: 3360: 3359: 3358: 3357: 3356: 3355: 3354: 3353: 3352: 3351: 3350: 3349: 3348: 3327: 3324: 3319: 3318: 3317: 3316: 3315: 3314: 3313: 3312: 3311: 3310: 3309: 3308: 3307: 3306: 3305: 3304: 3303: 3302: 3301: 3300: 3283: 3280: 3275: 3274: 3273: 3272: 3271: 3270: 3269: 3268: 3267: 3266: 3265: 3264: 3263: 3262: 3261: 3260: 3245: 3242: 3237: 3236: 3235: 3234: 3233: 3232: 3231: 3230: 3229: 3228: 3227: 3226: 3225: 3224: 3213: 3210: 3205: 3204: 3203: 3202: 3201: 3200: 3199: 3198: 3197: 3196: 3175: 3172: 3168: 3164: 3163: 3162: 3161: 3160: 3159: 3158: 3157: 3156: 3155: 3154: 3153: 3152: 3151: 3150: 3149: 3148: 3147: 3146: 3145: 3128: 3125: 3120: 3119: 3118: 3117: 3116: 3115: 3114: 3113: 3112: 3111: 3110: 3109: 3108: 3107: 3106: 3105: 3090: 3087: 3082: 3078: 3077: 3076: 3075: 3074: 3073: 3072: 3071: 3070: 3069: 3068: 3067: 3066: 3065: 3052: 3049: 3044: 3043: 3042: 3041: 3040: 3039: 3038: 3037: 3036: 3035: 3034: 3033: 3020: 3017: 3012: 3011: 3010: 3009: 3008: 3007: 3006: 3005: 3004: 3003: 3002: 3001: 2990: 2987: 2982: 2981: 2980: 2979: 2978: 2977: 2976: 2975: 2974: 2973: 2964: 2961: 2957: 2956: 2955: 2954: 2953: 2952: 2951: 2950: 2943: 2940: 2936: 2935: 2934: 2933: 2932: 2931: 2926: 2923: 2919: 2918: 2917: 2916: 2915: 2914: 2911: 2903: 2901: 2900: 2897: 2884: 2881: 2876: 2875: 2874: 2873: 2872: 2871: 2870: 2869: 2856: 2853: 2848: 2847: 2846: 2845: 2844: 2843: 2842: 2841: 2840: 2839: 2838: 2837: 2826: 2823: 2818: 2815: 2814: 2813: 2812: 2811: 2810: 2809: 2808: 2807: 2806: 2797: 2794: 2790: 2787: 2785: 2782: 2779: 2778:0-8147-1878-7 2776: 2772: 2769: 2768: 2767: 2766: 2764: 2762: 2758: 2754: 2751: 2745: 2744:1-566-43021-6 2742: 2738: 2735: 2733: 2732:0-275-94913-3 2730: 2726: 2723: 2721: 2720:0-313-26539-9 2718: 2714: 2711: 2710: 2709: 2708: 2706: 2705: 2704: 2703: 2696: 2693: 2689: 2685: 2681: 2678: 2677: 2676: 2675: 2674: 2673: 2668: 2665: 2660: 2659: 2658: 2657: 2642: 2639: 2634: 2633: 2632: 2631: 2630: 2629: 2628: 2627: 2626: 2625: 2624: 2623: 2622: 2621: 2610: 2607: 2604: 2602: 2598: 2593: 2589: 2588: 2587: 2586: 2585: 2584: 2583: 2582: 2581: 2580: 2571: 2568: 2564: 2560: 2555: 2554: 2553: 2552: 2551: 2550: 2549: 2548: 2541: 2538: 2534: 2533: 2532: 2531: 2530: 2529: 2524: 2521: 2516: 2515: 2514: 2513: 2512: 2511: 2508: 2502: 2501: 2498: 2489: 2486: 2481: 2480: 2479: 2478: 2475: 2471: 2467: 2463: 2459: 2455: 2451: 2450: 2449: 2448: 2445: 2432: 2429: 2424: 2423: 2422: 2421: 2420: 2419: 2412: 2409: 2404: 2403: 2402: 2401: 2400: 2399: 2394: 2391: 2387: 2382: 2378: 2377: 2376: 2375: 2368: 2367: 2366: 2365: 2358: 2357: 2356: 2355: 2354: 2353: 2350: 2346: 2342: 2335: 2331: 2330: 2329: 2323: 2319: 2318: 2317: 2313: 2307: 2299: 2296: 2291: 2290: 2289: 2288: 2287: 2286: 2281: 2278: 2274: 2273: 2272: 2271: 2264: 2263: 2262: 2261: 2255: 2251: 2247: 2243: 2239: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2233: 2226: 2223: 2222: 2221: 2220: 2216: 2204: 2201: 2196: 2195: 2194: 2193: 2192: 2191: 2190: 2189: 2188: 2187: 2178: 2174: 2170: 2166: 2165: 2164: 2160: 2156: 2152: 2150: 2146: 2142: 2138: 2137: 2136: 2135: 2134: 2133: 2122: 2119: 2114: 2110: 2106: 2105: 2104: 2103: 2102: 2101: 2100: 2099: 2098: 2097: 2088: 2085: 2081: 2077: 2076: 2075: 2074: 2073: 2072: 2071: 2070: 2059: 2056: 2051: 2050: 2049: 2048: 2047: 2046: 2045: 2044: 2043: 2042: 2037: 2034: 2029: 2028: 2027: 2026: 2013: 2010: 2005: 2004: 2003: 2002: 2001: 2000: 1999: 1998: 1997: 1996: 1995: 1994: 1985: 1982: 1977: 1976: 1975: 1974: 1973: 1972: 1971: 1970: 1968: 1964: 1962: 1958: 1957:Fifth Circuit 1944: 1943: 1942: 1939: 1934: 1933: 1932: 1931: 1930: 1929: 1928: 1927: 1923: 1919: 1915: 1909: 1908:</ref: --> 1900: 1899: 1894: 1891: 1887: 1886: 1885: 1884: 1881: 1878: 1873: 1872: 1871: 1868: 1867: 1864: 1860: 1856: 1844: 1841: 1837: 1834: 1830: 1826: 1822: 1819: 1815: 1812: 1811: 1810: 1809: 1808: 1807: 1806: 1805: 1798: 1794: 1790: 1786: 1782: 1778: 1777: 1776: 1775: 1774: 1773: 1766: 1762: 1758: 1753: 1752: 1751: 1750: 1749: 1748: 1741: 1738: 1734: 1729: 1728: 1727: 1726: 1725: 1724: 1717: 1714: 1709: 1708: 1707: 1706: 1705: 1704: 1699: 1696: 1691: 1687: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1681: 1678: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1667: 1659: 1658: 1657: 1650: 1649: 1648: 1645: 1637: 1636: 1635: 1628: 1620: 1617: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1607: 1602: 1599: 1594: 1593: 1592: 1591: 1588: 1585: 1580: 1579: 1578: 1577: 1574: 1570: 1561: 1558: 1555: 1551: 1547: 1542: 1541: 1540: 1539: 1536: 1533: 1528: 1523: 1522: 1521: 1520: 1517: 1512: 1503: 1500: 1496: 1495:orbiter dicta 1492: 1488: 1487: 1486: 1485: 1478: 1475: 1471: 1467: 1466: 1465: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1459: 1456: 1452: 1451: 1450: 1449: 1446: 1442: 1437: 1416: 1413: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1406: 1405: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1401: 1400: 1399: 1398: 1397: 1396: 1395: 1394: 1379: 1376: 1372: 1371: 1370: 1369: 1368: 1367: 1366: 1365: 1364: 1363: 1362: 1361: 1360: 1359: 1346: 1343: 1338: 1337:orbiter dicta 1334: 1328: 1322: 1321: 1320: 1319: 1318: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1314: 1313: 1312: 1311: 1300: 1297: 1293: 1289: 1288:orbiter dicta 1285: 1280: 1274: 1271: 1267: 1263: 1262: 1261: 1258: 1254: 1248: 1244: 1243: 1242: 1239: 1235: 1234: 1233: 1230: 1225: 1224: 1223: 1222: 1221: 1220: 1219: 1218: 1211: 1208: 1203: 1201: 1195: 1194: 1193: 1192: 1191: 1190: 1185: 1182: 1177: 1176: 1175: 1174: 1173: 1172: 1167: 1163: 1157: 1153: 1143: 1140: 1135: 1128: 1127: 1126: 1125: 1123: 1122: 1121: 1120: 1117: 1114: 1109: 1108: 1107: 1106: 1103: 1097: 1093: 1091: 1087: 1086:Fifth Circuit 1082: 1079: 1075: 1072: 1068: 1067:editprotected 1058: 1052: 1049: 1045: 1041: 1036: 1035: 1034: 1033: 1030: 1027: 1023: 1022: 1021: 1020: 1017: 999: 996: 993:compromise. 991: 990: 989: 986: 981: 977: 973: 972: 971: 968: 963: 959: 958: 957: 954: 949: 943: 940: 936: 935:obiter dictum 932: 928: 927:obiter dictum 924: 920: 919: 918: 915: 911: 907: 901: 898: 894: 893: 892: 889: 885: 881: 880: 879: 876: 871: 870: 869: 866: 861: 856: 852: 851: 850: 849: 848: 847: 842: 839: 835: 834: 833: 832: 825: 822: 821: 820: 819: 816: 813: 809: 808: 807: 806: 803: 799: 795: 785: 782: 777: 776: 775: 774: 773: 772: 764: 763:obiter dictum 760: 756: 755: 754: 753: 752: 751: 746: 743: 738: 737: 736: 735: 732: 729: 725: 724: 723: 722: 719: 715: 703: 700: 696: 692: 688: 687: 686: 683: 678: 673: 669: 668: 667: 664: 660: 659: 658:obiter dictum 654: 653: 648: 644: 640: 639: 638: 635: 630: 626: 622: 621: 620: 619: 616: 612: 609: 605: 603: 599: 596: 589: 586: 581: 576: 575: 574: 573: 570: 566: 565: 564:obiter dictum 560: 559: 554: 547: 544: 540: 539: 538: 537: 534: 525: 523: 522: 519: 515: 507: 503: 500: 495: 493: 486: 485: 484: 483: 480: 472: 469: 465: 460: 455: 454: 453: 452: 449: 443: 439: 431: 428: 423: 419: 418: 417: 416: 409: 406: 402: 398: 395: 394: 393: 392: 391: 390: 387: 384: 379: 378: 377: 376: 373: 366: 365: 360: 359: 354: 353: 349: 348: 343: 342: 337: 336: 331: 329: 325: 315: 312: 307: 306: 305: 304: 303: 302: 293: 290: 285: 284: 283: 282: 281: 280: 279: 278: 267: 263: 262: 261: 260: 259: 258: 257: 256: 245: 241: 240: 239: 238: 237: 236: 235: 234: 223: 220: 216: 215: 214: 213: 212: 211: 210: 209: 208: 207: 200: 197: 192: 191: 190: 189: 188: 187: 180: 177: 173: 169: 168: 167: 166: 165: 164: 159: 156: 151: 150: 149: 148: 145: 142: 138: 137: 136: 135: 132: 128: 121: 117: 115: 114:Fifth Circuit 111: 105: 104: 101: 92: 90: 83: 80: 78: 75: 73: 70: 67: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 5264: 5253: 5242: 5231: 5220: 5209: 5198: 5187: 5174: 5167: 5137: 5133: 5125: 5116: 5031: 4979: 4976: 4963: 4962: 4958: 4953: 4942: 4938: 4929: 4840: 4831: 4784:question."-- 4778: 4775: 4763: 4754: 4649:Saul Cornell 4587: 4455: 4450: 4447:Bottom line: 4446: 4430: 4426: 4422: 4410: 4405: 4401: 4397: 4393: 4362:this version 4342: 4333: 4308: 4295: 4288: 4269: 4267: 4201: 4177: 4151: 4126: 4040: 4026: 3969:I noticed.-- 3924:Three Models 3923: 3898: 3718: 3714: 3565: 3492: 3488: 3080: 2907: 2893: 2788: 2770: 2736: 2724: 2712: 2683: 2600: 2503: 2494: 2461: 2457: 2439: 2340: 2338: 2326: 2314: 2311: 2250:Obiter dicta 2224: 2112: 1966: 1954: 1911: 1905: 1869: 1858: 1853: 1780: 1663: 1655: 1646: 1642: 1632: 1566: 1526: 1508: 1494: 1490: 1435: 1433: 1336: 1332: 1326: 1287: 1283: 1265: 1252: 1246: 1197: 1151: 1148: 1099: 1095: 1083: 1080: 1076: 1073: 1062: 1059:Edit request 1039: 1012: 979: 975: 934: 930: 926: 922: 863:the origin? 859: 854: 827:copyrighted. 823:Yaf reverted 792: 762: 758: 712: 694: 690: 676: 671: 656: 650: 642: 628: 624: 600: 594: 592: 579: 562: 556: 550: 529: 511: 491: 489: 475: 463: 444: 440: 436: 421: 400: 396: 368: 362: 361: 356: 355: 351: 350: 345: 344: 339: 338: 334: 333: 322: 265: 243: 171: 127:Findlaw Writ 124: 119: 107: 96: 88: 65: 43: 37: 5108:Comment by 5097:dr.ef.tymac 4986:along with 4921:Comment by 4823:Comment by 4746:Comment by 4493:dr.ef.tymac 4460:dr.ef.tymac 4325:Comment by 4305:RFC Summary 4027:Which one? 2277:dr.ef.tymac 1829:Vikram Amar 1629:Open Issues 798:WP:CHILLOUT 490:"The court 217:Of course. 36:This is an 5153:SaltyBoatr 5089:SaltyBoatr 5040:SaltyBoatr 5006:SaltyBoatr 4896:SaltyBoatr 4868:SaltyBoatr 4799:SaltyBoatr 4797:section? 4795:definition 4725:SaltyBoatr 4592:SaltyBoatr 4533:SaltyBoatr 4366:SaltyBoatr 4352:SaltyBoatr 4327:SaltyBoatr 4218:SaltyBoatr 4170:SaltyBoatr 4144:SaltyBoatr 4115:SaltyBoatr 4073:SaltyBoatr 4043:SaltyBoatr 3990:SaltyBoatr 3950:SaltyBoatr 3914:SaltyBoatr 3869:SaltyBoatr 3723:SaltyBoatr 3571:SaltyBoatr 3427:SaltyBoatr 3323:SaltyBoatr 3241:SaltyBoatr 3171:SaltyBoatr 3086:SaltyBoatr 2986:SaltyBoatr 2939:SaltyBoatr 2910:SaltyBoatr 2896:SaltyBoatr 2880:SaltyBoatr 2822:SaltyBoatr 2692:SaltyBoatr 2606:SaltyBoatr 2537:SaltyBoatr 2507:SaltyBoatr 2485:SaltyBoatr 2408:SaltyBoatr 2334:SaltyBoatr 2295:SaltyBoatr 2238:SaltyBoatr 2200:SaltyBoatr 2084:SaltyBoatr 2055:SaltyBoatr 2009:SaltyBoatr 1938:SaltyBoatr 1877:SaltyBoatr 1863:SaltyBoatr 1840:SaltyBoatr 1836:0822330318 1825:Akhil Amar 1695:SaltyBoatr 1598:SaltyBoatr 1573:SaltyBoatr 1532:SaltyBoatr 1527:status quo 1499:SaltyBoatr 1474:SaltyBoatr 1445:SaltyBoatr 1412:SaltyBoatr 1296:SaltyBoatr 1270:SaltyBoatr 1238:SaltyBoatr 1207:SaltyBoatr 1113:SaltyBoatr 1048:SaltyBoatr 1016:SaltyBoatr 995:SaltyBoatr 967:SaltyBoatr 962:SaltyBoatr 939:SaltyBoatr 897:SaltyBoatr 875:SaltyBoatr 838:SaltyBoatr 812:SaltyBoatr 802:SaltyBoatr 781:SaltyBoatr 728:SaltyBoatr 718:SaltyBoatr 699:SaltyBoatr 663:SaltyBoatr 615:SaltyBoatr 611:0822330318 569:SaltyBoatr 533:SaltyBoatr 518:SaltyBoatr 479:SaltyBoatr 448:SaltyBoatr 383:SaltyBoatr 372:SaltyBoatr 289:SaltyBoatr 196:SaltyBoatr 176:SaltyBoatr 131:SaltyBoatr 100:SaltyBoatr 98:document. 5087:Actually 4887:PubliusFL 4880:. Also, 4853:PubliusFL 4825:PubliusFL 4719:from the 4588:top level 4274:≈ jossi ≈ 4245:PubliusFL 4227:≈ jossi ≈ 4203:≈ jossi ≈ 4089:≈ jossi ≈ 4054:≈ jossi ≈ 4029:≈ jossi ≈ 3801:PubliusFL 3641:PubliusFL 3497:PubliusFL 3279:PubliusFL 2852:PubliusFL 2753:≈ jossi ≈ 2590:See this 2466:≈ jossi ≈ 2169:≈ jossi ≈ 2155:≈ jossi ≈ 2141:≈ jossi ≈ 2118:PubliusFL 2113:Knowledge 2033:PubliusFL 1918:≈ jossi ≈ 1789:≈ jossi ≈ 1757:≈ jossi ≈ 1639:document. 1455:PubliusFL 1158:. — Carl 1074:replace: 742:PubliusFL 682:PubliusFL 634:PubliusFL 585:PubliusFL 543:PubliusFL 269:meaning'. 82:Archive 5 77:Archive 4 72:Archive 3 66:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 5120:contribs 5110:Arthurrh 5050:Arthurrh 4933:contribs 4906:Arthurrh 4835:contribs 4758:contribs 4559:Arthurrh 4476:Arthurrh 4402:analysis 4388:Arthurrh 4375:Arthurrh 4337:contribs 4258:Arthurrh 4155:Arthurrh 4130:Arthurrh 4111:Catch 22 3209:Arthurrh 3048:Arthurrh 2793:Arthurrh 2781:Arthurrh 2682:, quote 2664:Arthurrh 2497:Arthurrh 2444:Arthurrh 2428:Arthurrh 2390:Arthurrh 2349:Arthurrh 2228:Emerson. 1713:Arthurrh 1666:Arthurrh 1616:Arthurrh 1584:Arthurrh 1557:Arthurrh 1516:Arthurrh 1342:Arthurrh 1257:Arthurrh 1229:Arthurrh 1139:Arthurrh 855:verbatim 492:observed 422:numerous 358:correct. 112:for the 5170:archive 4947:of the 4882:WP:RSEX 4843:WP:PSTS 4667:of the 4659:of the 4456:Emerson 4451:Emerson 4427:Emerson 4411:Emerson 4398:opinion 4291:archive 3910:diff #4 3907:diff #3 3904:diff #2 3901:diff #1 3562:WP:NPOV 3489:outside 3079:I have 2454:WP:LEAD 2246:Holding 1959:of the 1901:This... 1735:issue. 1493:or the 1156:WP:RFPP 1088:of the 980:Emerson 976:Emerson 526:Emerson 247:Rights. 39:archive 5149:WP:ARS 5145:WP:ARS 5076:Eiler7 5062:Hoplon 5036:WP:ARS 5032:'dicta 5021:Hoplon 5002:WP:ARS 4864:WP:ARS 4671:, and 4346:meets 4278:(talk) 4231:(talk) 4207:(talk) 4180:WP:RFC 4093:(talk) 4058:(talk) 4033:(talk) 2757:(talk) 2470:(talk) 2173:(talk) 2159:(talk) 2145:(talk) 1922:(talk) 1793:(talk) 1785:WP:NOR 1761:(talk) 1154:go to 1081:with: 625:saying 459:WP:ATT 244:amicus 172:solely 4878:WP:RS 4431:favor 4406:minor 2563:WP:TE 2343:from 2248:from 2109:WP:OR 1914:WP:OR 1733:WP:TE 580:often 464:still 16:< 5114:talk 5060:. - 4943:The 4927:talk 4829:talk 4752:talk 4679:and 4386:(To 4331:talk 4313:and 4270:your 4140:diff 3942:Here 3715:both 2775:ISBN 2741:ISBN 2729:ISBN 2717:ISBN 2688:WP:V 2597:WP:V 2595:per 2592:diff 2561:and 2460:and 1955:The 1833:ISBN 1827:and 1690:WP:V 1569:diff 1552:and 1548:and 1294:? 1250:and 1166:talk 1152:then 1084:The 933:and 925:and 608:ISBN 514:WP:V 266:some 5172:. 5162:... 4992:Yaf 4980:one 4923:Yaf 4812:LWF 4786:LWF 4748:LWF 4683:of 4675:of 4651:of 4643:of 4635:of 4627:of 4142:. 4003:LWF 3971:LWF 3929:LWF 3721:. 3372:LWF 3169:. 3124:Yaf 3081:not 3016:Yaf 2960:Yaf 2922:Yaf 2638:Yaf 2567:Yaf 2520:Yaf 2462:con 2458:pro 1981:Yaf 1890:LWF 1823:by 1781:not 1737:Yaf 1677:Yaf 1375:Yaf 1335:or 1324:is: 1286:or 1266:not 1181:Yaf 1162:CBM 1102:Yaf 1026:LWF 985:Yaf 953:Yaf 914:Yaf 888:Yaf 865:Yaf 860:and 691:can 677:not 672:any 655:or 561:or 516:. 499:Yaf 468:Yaf 427:Yaf 405:Yaf 311:Yaf 219:Yaf 155:Yaf 141:Yaf 5095:. 4663:, 4655:, 4647:, 4639:, 4293:. 3493:me 1164:· 1070:}} 1064:{{ 643:if 629:in 595:do 330:: 5122:) 5117:· 5112:( 4935:) 4930:· 4925:( 4837:) 4832:· 4827:( 4760:) 4755:· 4750:( 4687:. 4390:) 4339:) 4334:· 4329:( 1198:" 1168:) 1160:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index