Black Crawling Systems Archive Release 1.0/Black Crawling Systems Archive Release 1.0 (L0pht Heavy Industries, Inc.)(1997).ISO/tezcat/Guns/Second_Interpretation.txt

Text File | 1996-07-08 | 24KB | 577 lines

From the Radio Free Michigan archives

ftp://141.209.3.26/pub/patriot

If you have any other files you'd like to contribute, e-mail them to
[e-mail].
------------------------------------------------

 This file contains my work on establishing that the text
 of the Second Amendment ("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.)
 cannot be interpreted in any other way than as a
 constitutional protection of the right of the people to
 keep and bear arms.

 This file contains two published articles containing
 analyses of the Second Amendment by experts in American/
 English usage and grammer, and some additional comments
 based on those analyses.

 J. Neil Schulman
 February 27, 1993


 ****************************************************************


 The following article appeared in the September, 1991
 issue of \California Libertarian News\, official newsletter
 of the California Libertarian Party.  Reproduction on
 computer bulletin boards is permitted for informational
 purposes only.  Copyright (c) 1991 by J. Neil Schulman.
 All other rights reserved.


      ENGLISH USAGE EXPERT INTERPRETS 2ND AMENDMENT

                   by J. Neil Schulman

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.

I gave Mr. Brocki my name, told him Sherryl Broyles referred me,
then asked him to parse 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."

Mr. Brocki informed me that the sentence was overpunctuated, but
that the meaning could be extracted anyway.

"A well-schooled electorate" is a nominative absolute.

"being necessary to the security of a free State" is a
participial phrase modifying "electorate"

The subject (a compound subject) of the sentence is "the right of
the people"

"shall not be infringed" is a verb phrase, with "not" as an
adverb modifying the verb phrase "shall be infringed"

"to keep and read books" is an infinitive phrase modifying
"right"

I then asked him if he could rephrase the sentence to make it
clearer.  Mr. Brocki said, "Because a well-schooled electorate is
necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the
people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."

I asked: can the sentence be interpreted to restrict the right to
keep and read books to a well-schooled electorate -- say,
registered voters with a high-school diploma?"  He said, "No."

I then identified my purpose in calling him, and read him the
Second Amendment in full:

"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."

He said he thought the sentence had sounded familiar, but that
he hadn't recognized it.

I asked, "Is the structure and meaning of this sentence the same
as the sentence I first quoted you?"  He said, "yes."  I asked
him to rephrase this sentence to make it clearer.  He transformed
it the same way as the first sentence: "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.

J. Neil Schulman
July 17, 1991



 ***************************************************************


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 \Journal on Firearms and Public
Policy\, Summer 1992, Volume 4, Number 1.

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 other rights reserved.


                 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?




 ***************************************************************


I was looking at the "View" section of the LA Times from
December 18, 1991 today -- an article on James Michener
which my wife Kate had saved for me to read -- when the
beginning of Jack Smith's column caught my eye: "Roy
Copperud had no sooner died the other day than I had
occasion to consult his excellent book, 'American Usage
and Style: The Consensus.'"

Thus I learned of the death a few weeks ago of Roy
Copperud, the retired USC professor whom I commissioned
to do a grammatical analysis of the Second Amendment this
past summer.  (My article was published in the September 13th
issue of \Gun Week\.)  It seems to have been one of the last
projects he worked on.  It is certainly one of the most
important.

Roy Copperud told me afterwards that he, personally, favored
gun control, but his analysis of the Second Amendment made
clear that its protections of the right of the people to keep
and bear arms were unaffected by its reference to militia.
This sort of intellectual and professional honesty is sorely
lacking in public discourse today.

In my several letters and phone conversations with Professor
Copperud, I found him to be a gentleman of the old school.
The planet is a little poorer without him.

J. Neil Schulman
December 27, 1991


 ***************************************************************


               SOME NOTES ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT

             by J. Neil Schulman, Founder and Chair
         The Committee to Enforce the Second Amendment

"A well-regulated militia" in the preamble to the Second
Amendment means "civilians who are trained how to use arms,"
as opposed to army regulars.  In essence, the Second Amendment
means, "Since it is necessary for the security of a free
society that civilians know how to use arms, the right of
the people to own and carry arms shall not be abridged."

While Professor Copperud was technically correct that the
meanings of the words haven't changed in 200 years -- the
definition of "militia" in the dictionary and on the law books
hasn't changed --  the public understanding of the word
"militia" has been corrupted so most people today believe that
the "militia" is a military unit rather than a civilian
concept.  This is precisely the "war is peace and freedom is
slavery" corruption of language that George Orwell warned us
against in \Nineteen eighty four\.

As far as the legal standing of the right to keep and bear arms
in this country, it's mixed.  The Supreme Court has never made
a ruling on the second amendment \per se\.  It ruled in the
Cruikshank case that the KKK disarmament of blacks wasn't a
second amendment violation because (a) it was private citizens
disarming private citizens, and (b) the fourteenth amendment didn't
make the second amendment apply to the states.  The modern
Supreme Court has reversed itself on both points with its
enforcement of civil rights legislation.  The Presser decision
merely said that you can't have your private army walk down
Main Street armed, without getting a police permit first.  (And
Presser was carrying a sword, not a gun.)  And the Miller
decision in 1939 was warped because by the time of the appeal,
Miller was dead, and the co-defendant had skipped town, leaving
the Supreme Court in the strange position of seeing evidence
from only the prosecution; it had no legal choice but to grant
the prosecution's petition regarding upholding the federal gun-
control law.

The Supreme Court \could\ have settled the issue by issuing a
summary affirmation of the appellate court ruling in the Morton
Grove case; instead, it chose not to hear the case, leaving
that ruling without any power of precedent, except in that
particular district.

In other words, the final word has not yet been spoken -- and
given the current make-up of the Court, it must make Handgun
Control, Inc., very nervous to contemplate what would happen if
a 2nd amendment case \does\ reach the Supreme Court.

J. Neil Schulman
January 12, 1992


 ***************************************************************

 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 35
Message 127       Sun Jan 19, 1992
SOFTSERV [NeilSchulman]      at 13:00 EST

Barry, Message 126: There is \no\ "limiting prefix" in the
Second Amendment.  Two prominent, impartial linguistic experts -
- one  considered the tops in his field -- analyzed the text of
the Second Amendment and came to this conclusion.  Read Message
72 and 73 in this topic for the full text of their analyses.

On the interpretation of the Constitution.  Article 9 of the
amendments reads, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of
certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage
others retained by the people."

That is instruction from the framers on how the constitution is
to be "construed" -- that is, "constructed."

Let's see, I just shot you down with facts twice.  Shall we
make it a shut-out?

The Oxford English Dictionary does not give a definition of
"well-regulated" but instead gives citations for its use.  Here
are its citations, which bracket the writing of the Second
Amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated
Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in
the world."

1812: "The equation of time .. is the adjustment of the
difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a
true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated
person will blame the Major."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a
clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-
regulated American embryo city."

Find me "regulation" by an outside authority in any of these
uses.

Now, a reasonable person, when presented with facts refuting
their assumptions, will admit that he or she is wrong.  Now
that you have been publicly refuted, you have several options.
You can admit that the Framers unambiguously intended the
Second Amendment to protect the right of the people to keep and
bear arms.  You can abandon facts and reason, and find new ways
to restate your argument so that people might get baffled by
b*s* and forget the point of the discussion.  Or you can just
abandon this discussion, and pop up with the same refuted
arguments in some other discussion, hoping people might have
forgotten.

The latter two are what most people in bbs discussions do.  How
about surprising me?

Neil
 ------------

------------------------------------------------
(This file was found elsewhere on the Internet and uploaded to the
Radio Free Michigan archives by the archive maintainer.


All files are ZIP archives for fast download.

 E-mail [e-mail])