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