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