Talk:Roger Benitez

NPOV

There's an unregistered editor writing edit summaries that are politically charged and constitute ad hominem attacks while editing this article. The summaries seem to be references to Benitez's decision on California's Assault Weapons Ban. These summaries are a blatant violation of WP:NPOV. MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 12:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

You can request hiding revisions or edit summaries via the instructions here.Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing “politically charged” about observing that a Swiss Army knife is not a combat weapon. It also not “ad hominem” to describe a statement as “insane”, though it is impolite and therefore I can agree with removing the wording. OTOH the current version of the article gives an interpretation of the comparison that eschews the literal reading for something much less over the top, and I would suggest to restore the actual wording.14.3.151.90 (talk) 01:04, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Heller Citation and Reuters Article Regarding Kolbe v Hogan (Assault Weapons Ban)

Regarding the invocation of The 4th circuit's opinion of "Assault Weapons" in Kolbe v Hogan via the Reuters article, The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling would not be binding on a judge that is within the jurisdiction of The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Additionally, the quote provided is out of context and misleading.

District of Columbia V Heller

Page 55 of the opinion provides the full context

"It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right. "

Except you're doing WP:OR. Secondary reliable source Reuters reported:

“The Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” he wrote in Heller. Specifically, the Heller opinion cited “the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons,’” such as “weapons that are most useful in military service—M–16 rifles and the like.”

soibangla (talk) 00:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Exactly how is this WP:OR? The quotation provided by soibangla is not germane to the the biography of Judge Benitez, nor is it a faithful quotation of the opinion of the court in Heller.While it could be argued that is how The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals interpreted Heller in Kolbe v Hogan, it is not the opinion of Antonin Scalia nor of The United States Supreme Court, let alone germane.

Below is the full context from which the quotation provided by soibangla drew via the Reuters article.

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms.

Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16 Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

This would not violate Rule 4 regarding Primary Sources as providing full context of source material is not analysis, evaluation, interpretation or synthesis of primary source material. Additionally, this quotation is consistent with:

"A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."

The United States Supreme Court website which holds District of Columbia v Heller is a publicly available resource for any person with a computer to verify (let alone any educated person).

If anything, the quotation supplied by soibangla is itself WP:OR.

PubliusChecker (talk) 19:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge, such as expertise in constitutional law to accurately interpret complex SCOTUS decisions. This is why we rely on reliable secondary sources rather than raw documents interpreted by editors. soibangla (talk) 20:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

It is not further, specialized knowledge to provide full context of a quotation from publicly available document. Any person in the world can do a CTRL+F within their browser to provide full context.

Additionally, the provided Reuters article is providing a demonstratively & materially false representation of the opinion of The United States Supreme Court (and that of the late Antonin Scalia) through selective quotation without proper remarking such as using ellipses to indicate certain text is omitted.

No case has been granted a writ of certiorari pertaining to any question of Assault Weapon Bans by The United States Supreme Court as of this writing, let alone opinion issued.

The insertion of the Reuters coverage of Kolbe v Hogan and The 4th Circuit's interpretation of Heller is not relevant to a biographical entry of Judge Benitez. PubliusChecker (talk) 20:57, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Ctrl+F is certainly useful in finding content, but it doesn't do much to interpret semantics. Heller was added to the paragraph because the judge specifically referenced it in his decision, even though Heller doesn't support ownership of assault weapons. BTW, kudos to you for ramping up so quickly on the mechanics of WP within just a day. soibangla (talk) 21:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

      I appreciate the feedback. The issue is less to do with semantics, but rather providing proper context of Heller and language within Heller.Without the inclusion of ellipses, it implies that Heller ruled pertaining to Assault Weapon Bans despite the syllabus of Heller stating holdings of:

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

While the syllabus isn't considered "the opinion", it provides an outline of how the opinion will flow.

Heller at its core does not cover AR-15s, M-16s or any other "Assault Weapon" explicitly in terms of legality. With that said, Kolbe v Hogan (what the Reuters article covers)was a case in separate judicial circuit from that which Judge Benitez is part of.As such, it would not be binding on Judge Benitez.It is not the opinion of The United States Supreme Court, but that of The United States Court of Appeals for the 4th circuit. It would be more accurate to say there remains a dispute among federal courts as to the legality of such weapons and any edits should further reflect that and would allow the referenced article to remain as part of the record.PubliusChecker (talk) 21:46, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

It has everything to do with semantics, and this is not the venue to be debating 2A and Heller, we use reliable secondary sources rather than any editor's interpretation of SCOTUS decisions. Continuing to cite long passages of Heller does not bolster your argument here. Please do not endeavor to remove the content based on your approach thus far, as doing so simply would not be compliant with policy. Benitez cited both Heller and Miller to allow assault weapons, yet neither precedent allowed them, and virtually every federal court prior to Heller found the 2A was a collective rather than individual right. I suggest googling what chief justice Burger said about the new interpretation of 2A after his retirement: "Fraud."[1]] soibangla (talk) 23:46, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

It has everything to do with semantics, and this is not the venue to be debating 2A and Heller, we use reliable secondary sources rather than any editor's interpretation of SCOTUS decisions.

I do not think you are using the word "semantics" properly. What your edits amount to are a significant and material distortion of the court record. The contribution as it stands to a biographical entry of Judge Benitez is serving no other purpose than to distort the record for the sake of partisan editing during high traffic times. Providing FULL context to a quote showing a significant and material distortion on the actual judicial record made by an editor is not interpretation.The honest edit would be to re-write your contribution to indicate that there is a dispute in other federal circuits regarding such weaponry as opposed to distorting the record of The United States Supreme Court.I have not declared my intention toward 2A and Heller, but rather sought to correct shoddy editing done in a nakedly partisan fashion.It appears though,you have imparted your own biases into your editorial decisions.

Continuing to cite long passages of Heller does not bolster your argument here. Please do not endeavor to remove the content based on your approach thus far, as doing so simply would not be compliant with policy. Benitez cited both Heller and Miller to allow assault weapons, yet neither precedent allowed them, and virtually every federal court prior to Heller found the 2A was a collective rather than individual right.I suggest googling what chief justice Burger said about the new interpretation of 2A after his retirement: "Fraud."

I'll let other editors make the determination based upon this discussion between you and I as to whether or not this article should be changed to reflect the current state of The United States Supreme Court precedent. Your contribution is what amounts to WP:OR as I have stated before:

Heller at its core does not cover AR-15s, M-16s or any other "Assault Weapon" explicitly in terms of legality.

To spell this out plainly: The United States Supreme Court has not ruled IN ANY DIRECTION regarding the legality of these weapons as of this writing and your contribution is a deliberate distortion of the judicial record constituting WP:OR.

This is not editorial "interpretation",this is a publicly available fact. Invoking the term "reliable secondary sources" is a sleight of hand to conflate Reuters coverage of what The United States Courts of Appeals for the 4th Circuit THOUGHT Heller supported with what The United States Supreme Court has granted cert AND ruled on.You have conflated the issues of The 2nd Amendment being an individual versus collective right and that of possession and carry of "Assault Weapons". As I said, the far more neutral take would be to state Judge Benitez cited Heller in his decision, but the issue remains disputed within other federal courts.

If you want to dispute Stare Decisis by claiming judicial activism and citing Chief Justice Burger, that's your privilege but invoking it is nothing more than you editorializing your opinion onto this article through manipulative citation games.Additionally, wouldn't a citation of Chief Justice Burger's own statements constitute WP:OR since you have taken Chief Justice Burger's own words without the use of a "reliable secondary source" to use as an interpretive lens?PubliusChecker (talk) 22:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Here's the bottom line: you are disputing a reliable secondary source with your interpretation of a primary source. This is in direct contravention of a cardinal principle of this encyclopedia, and if it were allowed Wikipedia would be full of Bundy analysis.[2] Nowhere in your verbosity here do I see you providing a single reliable secondary source to make your argument, and those are our bread and butter here. Your analysis may be completely correct, but it doesn't matter here, and this is why I've tried to explain that your long Heller passages are futile here, regardless of whether your interpretation is correct. You can certainly challenge the content with other reliable secondary sources, or simply by reverting it and asking others to defend its inclusion, but your approach thus far is fatally flawed from the standpoint of the core principles of Wikipedia. But don't take my word for it, ask around. Please note that I included the Burger clip here on a Talk page for discussion and persuasion purposes, but in no way did I suggest it should be cited in the article. There's a very big difference. I have numerous other objections to what you just wrote, but this discussion has become a time sink for me and I'm just gonna let it go, so I encourage you and others to discuss it further. soibangla (talk) 23:33, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

:Here's the bottom line: you are disputing a reliable secondary source with your interpretation of a primary source. This is in direct contravention of a cardinal principle of this encyclopedia, and if it were allowed Wikipedia would be full of Bundy analysis.

The straw-man of "reliable secondary source" is on full display here. From your source:

Second Amendment does not apply to assault weapons: en banc 4th Circuit

The majority focused instead on Justice Scalia’s concession that governments may prohibit “weapons that are most useful in military service—M–16 rifles and the like.”

This is a report of The United States Court of Appeals for The 4th Circuit's interpretation of Scalia's remarks in Heller by Reuters.This is a tertiary source, not a secondary one given that Heller itself is primary and The 4th Circuit's Opinion in Kolbe v Hogan would be a secondary source.

Wikipedia's own documentation on sources.

Appropriate use of primary and tertiary sources

Primary sources are appropriate when the purpose of using them is purely illustrative, such as providing a photograph of a historic event in an article about that event or providing a quote of an author's prose in an article about the author. When using primary sources it is necessary to avoid attempts at interpreting the sources: the purpose is to give readers representative and neutral examples. Primary sources may also be used as references for specific uncontroversial facts that require no interpretation, such as names and dates.

Providing the full context of Justice Scalia's quote is an uncontroversial fact unto itself.If calling out this scholastic malpractice is likened to amateurism as opposed to grappling with the criticism of the editorial malfeasance, then your fiefdom lies upon a poor foundation. If you insist however:

Post-Heller Second Amendment Jurisprudence

After Heller and McDonald, numerous challenges were brought on Second Amendment grounds to various federal, state, and local firearm laws and regulations. Because Heller neither purported to define the full scope of the Second Amendment, nor suggested a standard of review for evaluating Second Amendment claims, the lower federal courts have been tasked with doing so in the Second Amendment challenges brought before them. These challenges include allegations that provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended, as well as various state and local firearm laws (e.g., “assault weapon” bans, concealed carry regulations, firearm licensing schemes) are unconstitutional. The analyses in these cases may provide useful guideposts for Congress should it seek to enact further firearm regulations.

Nowhere in your verbosity here do I see you providing a single reliable secondary source to make your argument, and those are our bread and butter here.Your analysis may be completely correct, but it doesn't matter here, and this is why I've tried to explain that your long Heller passages are futile here, regardless of whether your interpretation is correct. You can certainly challenge the content with other reliable secondary sources, or simply by reverting it and asking others to defend its inclusion, but your approach thus far is fatally flawed from the standpoint of the core principles of Wikipedia. But don't take my word for it, ask around.

Your standards are far too lax in terms of what you deem to be reliable, but again, here are Wikipedia's own definitions.

Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form"... Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source.

There is no more reliable source for the meaning of a United States Supreme Court Opinion on an issue than The United States Supreme Court itself. The selective, literal quotation of a portion of District of Columbia v Heller laundered about purporting to be faithfully exhaustive and authoritative is nakedly transparent.

Given that both a PRIMARY and SECONDARY source have indicated no United States Supreme Court Opinion, nor that of the opinion of the late Justice Antonin Scalia has indicated Assault Weapons Bans are constitutional, your contribution is that of WP:OR. The conflation of verbosity with that of irrelevancy (and dare I say implication of falsehood) is rather telling given your editorial work is on rather dubious grounds. Your strongest case for factual determination of this claim would be grants of cert, but so far none are offered by you.

Please note that I included the Burger clip here on a Talk page for discussion and persuasion purposes, but in no way did I suggest it should be cited in the article. There's a very big difference. I have numerous other objections to what you just wrote, but this discussion has become a time sink for me and I'm just gonna let it go, so I encourage you and others to discuss it further.

I was under the assumption that I was a rank amateur capable of only "Bundy Analysis"? Shouldn't be too hard to deal with the likes of me in terms of your disagreements.Our discussion has made it quite clear, institutional and practical norms of select Wikipedia editors have been equated with truth,proper scrutiny however demonstrates the lack of ability by those said editors to ascertain truth and such inability is obvious to a layperson. PubliusChecker (talk) 01:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Suspected Original Research and Circular Referencing

The passage - "Benitez vocalized his disapproval of the measure in his ruling and expressed doubt that it had assisted in reducing the number of deaths inflicted by AR-15 variants, stating "More people have died from the Covid-19 vaccine than mass shootings in California."" - does not have anything approaching a proper reference to backup that quote. It instead cites a CDC page on vaccination and a wikipedia page listing shooting in California. Of course, that would constitute circular referencing on top of original research. I do not really interact with the Wiki that much (I only keep an account for the rare bout of copyediting), but when I was looking at this page (Template:Original research inline) thinking that would be a good quiet remedy, I learned about the exceptions to its use under the BLP policy.

Can someone with more experience take a close look at that passage? From the looks of it that quotation seems like a serious violation of BLP in and of itself given the useless references presented. I just don't want to mess with a bio page to remedy the suspected issue unilaterally. Goddale120 (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I looked through the article's history and found the problem edit from June 19, 2022. An editor removed washington post references for the quote, seeming to dismiss those articles as "partisan" and "personal opinion", replacing them with the aforementioned original research and circular referencing. I know to assume good faith, and would suggest just removing that quote from the article altogether if those previously utilized references are too "partisan" for the regular editors of these articles. As of right now, it appears to just be a made up quote attributed to that judge, and of a very serious and controversial topic as well. Goddale120 (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Edit war resolution

@199.188.117.49: as referenced by other editors, your content additions seem POV-pushing; I'd be happy to discuss this if you'd like. Please also note that further reverts without discussions and resolution might violate WP:3RR. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 01:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)