edgarblythe wrote:My interpretation of the Constitution is this:
When the Constitution was written, the only way to form and keep
a militia was for the citizens to provide their own guns.
Very true.
Quote:I doubt state governments had the cash.
Probably right.
Quote:Today, state militias already have the weapons.
They only need bodies.
Here are some exerpts of 2 brief articles
qua parsing the grammar of the 2nd Amendment,
by professionals of English usage.
They worked on a purely professional basis.
Tho the periodicals in which the articles
were published may well have been partial,
the experts showed their dispassionate work.
C what u think:
The Unabridged Second Amendment
by J. Neil Schulman
The following article appeared in the September, 1991 issue
of California Libertarian News, official newsletter of the
California Libertarian Party.
English Usage Expert Interprets 2nd Amendment
I just had a conversation with Mr. A.C. Brocki, Editorial Coordinator
for the Office of Instruction of the Los Angeles Unified School District.
Mr. Brocki taught Advanced Placement English for several years at
Van Nuys High School, as well as having been a senior editor for
Houghton Mifflin. I was referred to Mr. Brocki by Sherryl Broyles of the
Office of Instruction of the LA Unified School District, who described
Mr. Brocki as the foremost expert in grammar in the Los Angeles Unified
School District - the person she and others go to when they need
a definitive answer on English grammar.
...
"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."
I asked him to rephrase this sentence to make it clearer.
"Because 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 infringed."
I asked him whether the meaning could have changed in two hundred years.
He said, "No."
I asked him whether this sentence could be interpreted to restrict
the right to keep and bear arms to "a well-regulated militia."
He said, "
no."
According to Mr. Brocki, the sentence means that the people are the militia,
and that the people have the right which is mentioned.
I asked him again to make sure:
Schulman: "Can the sentence be interpreted to mean that the right can be restricted
to "a well-regulated militia?"
Brocki:
"No, I can't see that."
Schulman: "Could another professional in English grammar or linguistics
interpret the sentence to mean otherwise?"
Brocki: "I can't see any grounds for another interpretation."
I asked Mr. Brocki if he would be willing to stake his professional reputation
on this opinion, and be quoted on this. He said, "Yes."
At no point in the conversation did I ask Mr. Brocki his opinion on the
Second Amendment, gun control, or the right to keep and bear arms.- July 17, 1991
The following is reprinted from "The Text of The Second Amendment"
in The Journal on Firearms and Public Policy, Summer 1992, Volume 4, Number 1.
The Unabridged Second Amendment
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 Schwarzkopf, 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 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. ...
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.
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 f 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. ...
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."
UNITED STATES CODE TITLE 18 -
CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PART I -
CRIMES CHAPTER 13 - CIVIL RIGHTS
§§ 241. Conspiracy against rights
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any inhabitant
of any State, Territory, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right
or privilege secured to him by
the Constitution or laws of the United States,
or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another,
with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured -
They shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both;
and if death results, they shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life.
§§ 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law
Whoever, under color of any law, statute,
ordinance, regulation, or custom,
willfully subjects any inhabitant of any State,
Territory, or District
to the deprivation of any rights,
privileges, or immunities secured or protected
by the Constitution or laws of the United States,
or to different punishments, pains, or penalties,
on account of such inhabitant being an alien,
or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed
for the punishment of citizens,
shall be fined not more than $1,000
or imprisoned not more than one year, or both;
and if bodily injury results shall be fined
under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both;
and if death results shall be subject to imprisonment for
any term of years or for life.
