Time: Sun Mar 16 12:25:44 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA23276; Sun, 16 Mar 1997 10:13:56 -0700 (MST) Date: Sun, 16 Mar 1997 12:20:58 -0800 To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: 2nd amendment unabridged (fwd) <snip> >Excerpt's from: http://www.pulpless.com/stopsamp.html > >By J. Neil Schulman (author) > > The following is reprinted from the September 13, 1991 > issue of Gun Week, > > and also appears under the title > "The Text of The Second Amendment" in The Journal on > Firearms and Public Policy, Summer 1992, > Volume 4, Number 1. > ------------------- > > > ** The Unabridged Second Amendment ** > >Foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school >system, Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, >a retired professor of journalism at the University of >Southern California and the author of American Usage and >Style: The Consensus. > >He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, >and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him >as an expert, and is the winner of the Association of American >Publishers' Humanities Award. > > That sounds like an expert to me. > >After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I >introduced myself but did not give him any indication of why I >was interested, I sent the following letter on July 26, 1991: > > I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion > as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the > Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract > the intent from the text. > > The text of the Second Amendment is, "A well-regulated Militia, > being necessary to the security of a free State, the > right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." > > [Copperud:] The words "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to >the security of a free state," contrary to the interpretation cited in >your letter of July 26, 1991, constitute a present participle, rather >than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying "militia," which >is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject "the right," >verb "shall"). The right to keep and bear arms is asserted as essential >for maintaining a militia. > >In reply to your numbered questions: > > [Schulman: (1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the >right to keep and bear arms solely to "a well-regulated militia"?;] > > [Copperud:] (1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep >and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right >elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive >statement with respect to a right of the >people. > > [Schulman: (2) Is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms >" granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second >Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear >arms, and merely state that such right "shall not be infringed"?;] > > [Copperud:] (2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its >existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right >shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia. > > [Schulman: (3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms >conditioned upon whether or not a well-regulated militia is, in fact, >necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is >not existing, is the statement "the right of the people to keep and >bear Arms, shall not be infringed" null and void?;] > > [Copperud:] (3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The >right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend >on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as >to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity >of a well-regulated militia as requisite to the security of a free >state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the >entire sentence. > > [Schulman: (4) Does the clause "A well-regulated Militia, being >necessary to the security of a free State," grant a right to the >government to place conditions on the "right of the people to keep >and bear arms," or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning >of the entire sentence?;] > > [Copperud:] (4) The right is assumed to exist and to be >unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically >for the sake of the militia. > > [Schulman: (5) Which of the following does the phrase >"well-regulated militia" mean: "well-equipped," "well-organized," >"well-drilled," "well-educated," or "subject to regulations of >a superior authority"?] > > [Copperud:] (5) The phrase means "subject to regulations of a >superior authority"; this accords with the desire of the writers for >civilian control over the military. > > [Schulman: If at all possible, I would ask you to take into >account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence >was written two-hundred years ago, but not to take into account >historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those >issues can be clearly separated.] > > [Copperud:] To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change >in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of >the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a >well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, >the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged." > > [Schulman:] As a "scientific control" on this analysis, I would >also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of >the Second Amendment to the following sentence, > > "A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a >free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not >be infringed." > > My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be, > > (1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence, and >the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's >sentence?; and > > (2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict "the right of >the people to keep and read Books" only to "a well-educated electorate" > - for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?] > > [Copperud:] (1) Your "scientific control" sentence precisely >parallels the amendment in grammatical structure. > > (2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or >implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation. > > Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed >in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some >speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was >unable to reach any >conclusion." > > So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American >usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States >unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, >forbidding all government formed under the Constitution from abridging >that right. > > As I write this, the attempted coup against constitutional >government in the Soviet Union has failed, apparently because the will >of the people in that part of the world to be free from capricious >tyranny is stronger than the old guard's desire to maintain a monopoly >on dictatorial power. > > And here in the United States, elected lawmakers, judges, and >appointed officials who are pledged to defend the Constitution of the >United States ignore, marginalize, or prevaricate about the Second >Amendment routinely. American citizens are put in American prisons for >carrying arms, owning arms of forbidden sorts, or failing to satisfy >bureaucratic requirements regarding the owning and carrying of firearms > - all of which is an abridgement of the unconditional right of the >people to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Constitution. > > And even the ACLU, staunch defender of the rest of the Bill of Rights, > stands by and does nothing. > > It seems it is up to those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms >to preserve that right. No one else will. No one else can. Will we beg our >elected representatives not to take away our rights, and continue regarding >them as representing us if they do? Will we continue obeying judges who >decide that the Second Amendment doesn't mean what it says but means whatever >they say it means in their Orwellian doublespeak? > > Or will we simply keep and bear the arms of our choice, as the >Constitution of the United States promises us we can, and pledge that we >will defend that promise with our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor? > > * * * * * * * * * > > > > > ======================================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : Counselor at Law, federal witness email: [address in tool bar] : Eudora Pro 3.0.1 on Intel 586 CPU web site: http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this ========================================================================
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail