Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution#Redundancy in opening section

The first paragraph of the opening section of the page contains references to three fairly recent SCOTUS cases addressing the right to keep and bear arms:

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (2022). I suspect this is a relic from a much earlier version of the page, since the same three cases (plus a couple of others) are addressed again in the last paragraph of the opening section, which focuses on 21st century cases. I believe that the last paragraph is the correct place for mentioning these cases, and propose that they be removed from the first paragraph (there is a little bit of information about the cases in the first paragraph that isn't listed in the last, so it probably shouldn't be JUST removing them, but also incorporating that additional information into the appropriate places in the last paragraph). If nobody objects within a few days, I'll make the edit.DoctorEric (talk) 15:10, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

:In this case the lead is so large, the first paragraph sort of serves as a lead to the lead by defining the current meaning, so per WP:MOSLEAD: "The lead is the first thing most people read upon arriving at an article, and may be the only portion of the article that they read." That could be said for this first paragraph, and I support keeping the current version as is. Thanks for asking first. Maybe others will comment. ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:46, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

::How about this: Retain the mention of those cases in the first paragraph, but only as a brief statement that SCOTUS has recently affirmed the right to keep and bear arms in cases X, Y and Z. But move the summaries of each case into the last paragraph of the lead, for the reasons I initially suggested.DoctorEric (talk) 23:02, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I still like the first paragraph because it details (fleshes out) the meaning (or current interpretation) of the vague "keep and bear arms" statement by further explaining what this allows and doesn't allow. (For self-defense, rather than only hunting or militia use). I feel that this first paragraph as it stands gives a first time reader a better understanding of the current scope of this amendment than trimming it would. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:32, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I understand what you're saying, but I think you're over-interpreting the lead section by suggesting we need a "lead within a lead." I tried to think of other examples of this in Wikipedia and could not think of any--I'm sure some exist, but it's not the standard form. I agree with what you're saying about including what is and isn't permitted under the current interpretation, but I think it should be a very brief summary in the opening paragraph, then fleshed out further (to use your term) toward the end of the lead section; I worry that bombarding the reader with too many specific examples in just the first paragraph will cause many casual visitors to the page to turn away. I'm not sure you and I will come to an agreement on this, so I have requested mediation to have a neutral third party chime in. Thanks. DoctorEric (talk) 12:30, 19 April 2025 (UTC)