Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution/Archive 4

message: I have changed all of the external links and document references in the article into references (this collects all of them at the bottom of the article) in order to give the article a bit more of a "professional" look as well as changed blockquotes into using the Cquote macro as I think it gives a nicer look, i.e. more professional looking.  This is strictly a formatting issue and should not change the content. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) 03:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikifying

message: The references to the ninth and fourteenth amendment in the Cruikshank  are not suported  by the opinion, and in the case of the 14th, the paragraph is off-topic.  If nobody objects, I'm going to remove them.
::I object.  The Ninth and 14th are precisely on topic here.  To state otherwise, or to delete these references, is to mislead readers into believing that there is No right to keep and bear arms, since the 2A does not grant a right to keep and bear arms, but protects the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms.  YAF 05:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ninth and fourteenth amendments and Cruikshank

message: There seems to be a relatively easy to correct mistake here, the introduction doesn't summarize the article, just the Amendment, and it appears that this article discusses more than just the literal amendment but discussion of its impact and precendece in history at various times and whatnot. It just seems like something easy to fix, so im putting this article on hold on the nomination page so nobody speed-fails it. Homestarmy 04:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and the "on hold" status only lasts for a week, so eventually it's got to be graded or something. Homestarmy 07:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: GA failed on the account of not answering to the on hold comment given on the talk page. Lincher 03:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA nomination

message: I removed the verbiage about "no evidence" having been presented. Here's why.
The quotation is correct. However, "evidence," as a general rule, is not "presented" to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court hears arguments of law, and does not decide questions of fact (i.e., does not generally admit "evidence").
Although it's unclear from the context whether the Court was treating the term "evidence" here to mean something that would have been subject to determination by a trier of fact (such as a jury at the trial court level) or, alternatively, was using the term "evidence" more loosely to refer to something that could have been determined as a question of law, to be decided by the Court itself (and thus something that could be heard by the Court), the safer assumption is that the Court was referring to what appears to be the case: that the trial court threw the case out -- at the defendant's (or defendants') request, ironically -- before any evidence pro or con could really be presented. For Wikipedia editors, most of whom are not lawyers, I realize this may be a bit hard to follow.
Suffice to say that Miller is an unusual case in the sense that nobody representing the defendants showed up at the Supreme Court. The point seems to be that the case might have turned out differently had someone for the defendants' side showed up. So, the rest of the paragraph is indeed relevant, and stands on its own quite aside from the correct but somewhat misleading verbiage about "no evidence." Yours, Famspear 22:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "No evidence" versus "no case"