Talk:United States v. Cruikshank

message: Was it a 'militia' or 'mob'--no small distinction there?StevenTorrey (talk) 18:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I'm not a legal scholar, so I don't understand the reference to "Presser" near the end of this article.  Is this case referred to as Presser v. Cruikshank or something along those lines?  Or is Presser a different case that's related to this one? fsufezzik 18:22, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
: Looks like someone had a slip of the synapse, since corrected.  Anyway, Presser v. Illinois (116 U.S. 252 [1886]) challenged a ban on parading a privately-formed, armed group on public streets.  —Tamfang 03:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Presser?

message: The recent Supreme Court ruling in Heller did not discuss incorporation, the Second Amendment is still unincorporated, and so the mention here is improper.  I've removed the whole parenthetical, unless someone has a better idea.
Biccat (talk) 23:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  McDonald v. Chicago incorporates the Second Amendment.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.29.146 (talk) 01:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heller 

message: It seems misleading to refer to Clifford's opinion as the dissenting opinion in this case, when in fact what he is offering is a concurring opinion - "I concur that the judgment in this case should be arrested, but for reasons quite different from those given by the court." Although it is labeled as a "dissent" in the case opinion, the phrasing of the article gives the erroneous impression that Clifford voted to uphold the indictments, when he clearly did not. I am making appropriate changes in the article. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Dissenting Opinion" misleading 

message: I will be reverting the edit that removed this statement, as I have located an appropriate reference. Nwlaw63 (talk) 22:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colfax "Riot" 

message: For people like me, very basic information should be presented first.  Who is Cruikshank and who is the US government representing?  "the Cruikshank court held…" and "Cruikshank paralyzed the federal government's attempt…” should appear in the first sentences under ruling.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.6.106.189 (talk) 06:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarity 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on United States v. Cruikshank. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150107063310/http://columbialawreview.org/thirteenth-amendment-optimism/ to http://columbialawreview.org/thirteenth-amendment-optimism/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: If this article is entitled "United States v. Cruikshank," shouldn't we at least mention who the "Cruikshank" was? William J. Cruikshank was one of 17 members of a white mob indicted for lynching African American men. This is a very serious omission. How did it happen that the authors of this article failed to explain who Cruikshank was? Please correct this, in order to help make this article more properly encyclopedic. 98.123.38.211 (talk) 02:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very serious omission