279 lines
12 KiB
Plaintext
279 lines
12 KiB
Plaintext
|
|
The following is reprinted from the September 13, 1991 issue
|
|
of GUN WEEK:
|
|
|
|
|
|
THE UNABRIDGED SECOND AMENDMENT
|
|
|
|
by J. Neil Schulman
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up
|
|
Carl Sagan, right? And if you wanted to know about desert
|
|
warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwartzkopf, no
|
|
question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top
|
|
expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second
|
|
Amendment to the United States Constitution?
|
|
|
|
That was the question I asked Mr. A.C. Brocki, Editorial
|
|
Coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and
|
|
formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers -- who
|
|
himself had been recommended to me as the 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\.
|
|
|
|
A little research lent support to Brocki's opinion of
|
|
Professor Copperud's expertise.
|
|
|
|
Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for
|
|
over three decades before embarking on a distinguished seventeen-
|
|
year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has
|
|
been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of
|
|
journalism for \Editor and Publisher\, a weekly magazine focusing
|
|
on the journalism field.
|
|
|
|
He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary,
|
|
and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an
|
|
expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, \American Usage and
|
|
Style: The Consensus\, has been in continuous print from Van
|
|
Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, 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:
|
|
|
|
***
|
|
"July 26, 1991
|
|
|
|
"Dear Professor Copperud:
|
|
|
|
"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.'
|
|
|
|
"The debate over this amendment has been whether the first
|
|
part of the sentence, "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary
|
|
to the security of a free State," is a restrictive clause or a
|
|
subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause
|
|
containing the subject of the sentence, "the right of the people
|
|
to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
|
|
|
|
"I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take
|
|
into consideration issues of political impact or public policy,
|
|
but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its
|
|
meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis
|
|
will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences
|
|
of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be
|
|
a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind
|
|
with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath
|
|
to support, if necessary."
|
|
|
|
My letter framed several questions about the text of the
|
|
Second Amendment, then concluded:
|
|
|
|
"I realize that I am asking you to take on a major
|
|
responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because,
|
|
as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the
|
|
actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your
|
|
analysis not be affected by the political importance of its
|
|
results, I ask that you do this because of that importance.
|
|
|
|
"Sincerely,
|
|
|
|
"J. Neil Schulman"
|
|
|
|
***
|
|
|
|
After several more letters and phone calls, in which we
|
|
discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we
|
|
never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second
|
|
Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor
|
|
Copperud sent me the following analysis (into which I've inserted
|
|
my questions for the sake of clarity):
|
|
|
|
***
|
|
|
|
[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?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copyright (c) 1991 by The New Gun Week and Second Amendment
|
|
Foundation. Informational reproduction of the entire
|
|
article is hereby authorized provided the author, The New
|
|
Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation are credited.
|
|
All others rights reserved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
X-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-X
|
|
Another file downloaded from: The NIRVANAnet(tm) Seven
|
|
|
|
& the Temple of the Screaming Electron Taipan Enigma 510/935-5845
|
|
Burn This Flag Zardoz 408/363-9766
|
|
realitycheck Poindexter Fortran 510/527-1662
|
|
Lies Unlimited Mick Freen 801/278-2699
|
|
The New Dork Sublime Biffnix 415/864-DORK
|
|
The Shrine Rif Raf 206/794-6674
|
|
Planet Mirth Simon Jester 510/786-6560
|
|
|
|
"Raw Data for Raw Nerves"
|
|
X-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-X
|