Militia question 1

[Nikk]

Nikk, the concept of militia is very ancient and Americans are not the ones that invented it . They are just those who still base on it the idea(?) that they enjoy absolute freedom.

As far as I know ( correct me if I am wrong please) on the Greek island of Crete we have the unique case in Europe of the existence of a body of militia.

For those who don't know. Cretans carry arms and they carry them illegally mostly. So, since they carry arms and the State doesn't dars to take their arms away it has formed a body of militia. For mystery reason that must be cultural, although Cretans are ruthless and they don't respect even their mothers, they are very much afraid of the body of militia and they avoid messing up with them.

Who regulates the Cretan Militia? Ha! The Ministry of Justice. At least typically. Last week that I was in Crete I thought to make an inquiry about the militia. In reality they function with the oral rules of vendetta.

Do I bother? No. I just find amusing the fact that Cretans live with the illusion that they are free just because they carry arms. Once the militia and the law of vendetta appear though they S*** on their pants.

Bottom line: Militia, arms et cetera are nothing but illusions that politicians feed in order to steal the votes of the great unwashed I am talking about Crete now but think about it.

I never meant to suggest that the militia is a uniquely American/British or English institution, after all armed forces other than those of the central state have always been a feature of life.

For a modern state an old fashioned militia is pretty much an irrelevance although it is always possible to imagine some sort of circumstances in which a disorganised body of citizens might come in handy at short notice (alien invasion anyone?).

As regards the US at least, I think the right to bear arms has become a kind of political comfort blanket and substitute for thought. You can lose your job and health insurance at a moments notice; large corporations determine who can attempt to get elected and what their policies are; media corporations decide what information is accessible according to the needs of advertisers; religious corporations erode the ability to think - but it's OK, you are still free because you can buy a little bit of metal that goes bang. This is pretty much what you are saying I think.

 

[Ed]

Can somebody name me one incident that citizens used the rights that were given to them by the 2nd Amendment to react to an abuse of power of the central government?

The implication being that if it has not been used to date it is unnecessary? One could turn this around and cite the lack of abuse as proof of the efficacy of the second amendment. This direction for discussion is fairly fruitless, I fear.

 

[Ed]

As regards the US at least, I think the right to bear arms has become a kind of political comfort blanket and substitute for thought. You can lose your job and health insurance at a moments notice; large corporations determine who can attempt to get elected and what their policies are; media corporations decide what information is accessible according to the needs of advertisers; religious corporations erode the ability to think - but it's OK, you are still free because you can buy a little bit of metal that goes bang. This is pretty much what you are saying I think.

Maybe. I think the larger issue us that it is a right, useful or useless, and it is ours.

 

[crimresearch]

So far I haven't read a definite, one sentenced answer to Claus' question.

So, I repeat it. Who regulates militia? The President? The Congress? The local sheriff?? Me? You? Who?

Can we have the answer in one sentence please?

US Code, Title 10, section 311.
***************************************************

Perhaps the militia question doesn't have to be that complicated...the original US government didn't want to pay for the huge army it now has, as shown by the limiting language in the Constitution, 'An Army...not to exceed 2 years' ...


There are 2 components to the US militia system, quasi-regular citizen soldiers who could respond right away kept weapons at a government facility, and drilled under the command of militia officers...
And the rest of the militia members who kept weapons at home, and would show up to supplement the organized militia, so there was no need for a formal rank structure.

US code Title 10, section 311 spells this out, the US Supreme Court decision in Miller mentions the need to have ordinary citizens keep weapons of the type in common use at the time, i.e. rifles, not military armament, and US code Title 32 as well as the Constitution of each state identifies the milita as consisting of able bodied citizens who are not part of the regular army or guard type militia.

The 'confusion' may come from those who conflate things, such as creating their own armed anti-government group and calling it a militia, or those who try to apply the words at the beginning of the 2nd Amendment as some sort of qualifier to the final phrase.

'A well regulated militia being neccessary...' is a raison d'etre, not a limiting statement...
And the fact that the US evolution into a superpower has created a 'need' for a huge full time army does not erase the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Being adjudicated insane, or being convicted of a felony however, can exclude individuals from enjoying that right, and others.

just my .02

 

[Richard G]

I am interested in an incident that occured during the last 50 years, or after WWII.

Battle of Athens Tennesse, 1946:
http://www.jpfo.org/athens.htm

 

[CFLarsen]

Interesting replies, in all 4 threads.

We can conclude, that after more than 200 years, there seems to be absolutely no consensus on what a "well regulated militia" means, who participates in it, who regulates it, or even what regulated means.

Don't you think it would be a good idea to figure out just what the heck the 2nd Amendment means, before people start to beat their own drums about it?

Don't you think it might be a good idea to re-write the bleedin' thing, if there is such profound confusion about it?

It renders the rest of the argument - the right to bear arms - not only moot, but plain dumb.

You don't even know what the heck you are arguing about.

 

[Wolverine]

As noted elswhere, this claim is demonstrably false, Claus. Please review the resources with which you've been provided (whether you agree with them or not, they're quite clear).

 

[Ed]

I agree, the intent is quite clear. As far as rewriting it I suspect that it would look like one of the State Guarentees. Claus, reread my first post, in the US gun ownership is not going to change.

Alabama: That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 26 (enacted 1819, art. I, § 23, with "defence" in place of "defense," spelling changed 1901).

Alaska: 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 individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State. Art. I, § 19 (first sentence enacted 1959, second sentence added 1994).

Arizona: The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men. Art. II, § 26 (enacted 1912).

Arkansas: The citizens of this State shall have the right to keep and bear arms for their common defense. Art. II, § 5 (enacted 1868, art. I, § 5).
1836: "That the free white men of this State shall have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence." Art. II, § 21.

California: No provision.

Colorado: The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons. Art. II, § 13 (enacted 1876, art. II, § 13).

Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 15 (enacted 1818, art. I, § 17). The original 1818 text came from the Mississippi Constitution of 1817.

Delaware: A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use. Art. I, § 20 (enacted 1987).

Florida: (a) The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law.
(b) There shall be a mandatory period of three days, excluding weekends and legal holidays, between the purchase and delivery at retail of any handgun. For the purposes of this section, "purchase" means the transfer of money or other valuable consideration to the retailer, and "handgun" means a firearm capable of being carried and used by one hand, such as a pistol or revolver. Holders of a concealed weapon permit as prescribed in Florida law shall not be subject to the provisions of this paragraph.
(c) The legislature shall enact legislation implementing subsection (b) of this section, effective no later than December 31, 1991, which shall provide that anyone violating the provisions of subsection (b) shall be guilty of a felony.
(d) This restriction shall not apply to a trade in of another handgun. Art. I, § 8 (sections (b)-(d) added in 1990).
1838: "That the free white men of this State shall have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence." Art. I, § 21.
1865: Clause omitted.
1868: "The people shall have the right to bear arms in defence of themselves and of the lawful authority of the State." Art. I, § 22.
1885: "The right of the people to bear arms in defence of themselves and the lawful authority of the State, shall not be infringed, but the Legislature may prescribe the manner in which they may be borne." Art. I, § 20.
1968: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law." Art. I, § 8.


Georgia: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne. Art. I, § 1, ¶ VIII (enacted 1877, art. I, § XXII).
1865: "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." Art. I, § 4.
1868: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free people, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but the general assembly shall have power to prescribe by law the manner in which arms may be borne." Art. I, § 14.

Hawaii: 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. Art. I, § 17 (enacted 1959).

Idaho: The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged; but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to govern the carrying of weapons concealed on the person nor prevent passage of legislation providing minimum sentences for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm, nor prevent the passage of legislation providing penalties for the possession of firearms by a convicted felon, nor prevent the passage of any legislation punishing the use of a firearm. No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony. Art. I, § 11 (enacted 1978).
1889: "The people have the right to bear arms for their security and defense; but the Legislature shall regulate the exercise of this right by law." Art. I, § 11.

Illinois: Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Art. I, § 22 (enacted 1970).

Indiana: The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State. Art. I, § 32 (enacted 1851, art. I, § 32).
1816: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State, and that the military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power. Art. I, § 20.

Iowa: No provision.

Kansas: The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power. Bill of Rights, § 4 (enacted 1859, art. I, § 4).

Kentucky: All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned:
First: The right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties. . . .
Seventh: The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons. § 1 (enacted 1891).
1792: "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." Art. XII, § 23.
1799: "That the rights of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." Art. X, § 23.
1850: "That the rights of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned; but the General Assembly may pass laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed arms." Art. XIII, § 25.

Louisiana: The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person. Art. I, § 11 (enacted 1974).
1879: "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 abridged. This shall not prevent the passage of laws to punish those who carry weapons concealed." Art. 3.

Maine: Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned. Art. I, § 16 (enacted 1987, after a collective-rights interpretation of the original provision).
1819: "Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence; and this right shall never be questioned." Art. I, § 16.

Maryland: No provision.

Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it. Pt. 1, art. 17 (enacted 1780).

Michigan: Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 6 (enacted 1963).
1835: "Every person has a right to bear arms for the defence of himself and the State." Art. I, § 13.
1850: "Every person has a right to bear arms for the defense of himself and the state." Art. XVIII, § 7.


Minnesota: No provision.

Mississippi: The right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but the legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons. Art. III, § 12 (enacted 1890, art. 3, § 12).
1817: "Every citizen has a right to bear arms, in defence of himself and the State." Art. I, § 23.
1832: "Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence of himself and of the State." Art. I, § 23.
1868: "All persons shall have a right to keep and bear arms for their defence." Art. I, § 15.

Missouri: That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons. Art. I, § 23 (enacted 1945).
1820: "That the people have the right peaceably to assemble for their common good, and to apply to those vested with the powers of government for redress of grievances by petition or remonstrance; and that their right to bear arms in defence of themselves and of the State cannot be questioned." Art. XIII, § 3.
1865: Same as above, but with "the lawful authority of the State" instead of "the State." Art. I, § 8.
1875: "That the right of no citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereto legally summoned, shall be called into question; but nothing herein contained is intended to justify the practice of wearing concealed weapons." Art. II, § 17.

Montana: The right of any person to keep or bear arms in defense of his own home, person, and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. Art. II, § 12 (enacted 1889).

Nebraska: All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use, and all other lawful purposes, and such rights shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof. To secure these rights, and the protection of property, governments are instituted among people, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Art. I, § 1 (right to keep and bear arms enacted 1988).

Nevada: Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes. Art. I, § 11(1) (enacted 1982).

New Hampshire: All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state. Pt. 1, art. 2-a (enacted 1982).

New Jersey: No provision.

New Mexico: No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms. Art. II, § 6 (first sentence enacted in 1971, second sentence added 1986).
1912: "The people have the right to bear arms for their security and defense, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons." Art. II, § 6.

New York: No provision.

North Carolina: 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; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice. Art. 1, § 30 (enacted 1971).
1776: "That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." Bill of Rights, § XVII.
1868: "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; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up, and the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." Art. I, § 24.
1875: Same as 1868, but added "Nothing herein contained shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the Legislature from enacting penal statutes against said practice."

North Dakota: All individuals are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation; pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness; and to keep and bear arms for the defense of their person, family, property, and the state, and for lawful hunting, recreational, and other lawful purposes, which shall not be infringed. Art. I, § 1 (right to keep and bear arms enacted 1984).

Ohio: The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power. Art. I, § 4 (enacted 1851).
1802: "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State; and as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be kept up, and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to the civil power." Art. VIII, § 20.

Oklahoma: The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons. Art. II, § 26 (enacted 1907).

Oregon: The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.] Art. I, § 27 (enacted 1857, art. I, § 28).

Pennsylvania: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. Art. 1, § 21 (enacted 1790, art. IX, § 21).
1776: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power. Declaration of Rights, cl. XIII.

Rhode Island: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Art. I, § 22 (enacted 1842).

South Carolina: 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. As, in times of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained without the consent of the General Assembly. The military power of the State shall always be held in subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it. Art. 1, § 20 (enacted 1895).
1868: "The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence. As, in times of peace . . . ." Art. I, § 28.

South Dakota: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be denied. Art. VI, § 24 (enacted 1889).

Tennessee: That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime. Art. I, § 26 (enacted 1870).
1796: "That the freemen of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence." Art. XI, § 26.
1834: "That the free white men of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence." Art. I, § 26.

Texas: Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime. Art. I, § 23 (enacted 1876).
1836: "Every citizen shall have the right to bear arms in defence of himself and the republic. The military shall at all times and in all cases be subordinate to the civil power." Declaration of Rights, cl. 14.
1845: "Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in lawful defence of himself or the State." Art. I, § 13.
1868: "Every person shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defence of himself or the State, under such regulations as the legislature may prescribe." Art. I, § 13.

Utah: The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall prevent the legislature from defining the lawful use of arms. Art. I, § 6 (enacted 1984).
1896: "The people have the right to bear arms for their security and defense, but the legislature may regulate the exercise of this right by law."

Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power. Ch. I, art. 16 (enacted 1777, ch. I, art. 15).

Virginia: That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Art. I, § 13 (enacted 1776 without explicit right to keep and bear arms; "therefore, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" added in 1971).

Washington: The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men. Art. I, § 24 (enacted 1889).

West Virginia: A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, and for lawful hunting and recreational use. Art. III, § 22 (enacted 1986).

Wisconsin: The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose. Art. I, § 25 (enacted 1998).

Wyoming: The right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the state shall not be denied. Art. I, § 24 (enacted 1889).

http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/beararms/statecon.htm

Given that the States must ratify, it is hard to believe that the result of a Constitutional Amendment would look much different than what they have themselves.

Let me also point out that most of the statements, above, also specify a right to self defence. Which is, of course, meaningless without arms.

 

[CFLarsen]

Can somebody name me one incident that citizens used the rights that were given to them by the 2nd Amendment to react to an abuse of power of the central government?

The Revolution itself is a perfect example of that.

Provided that you can refrain from screaming at me in your usual uncontrollable manner, could you explain how this is so?

The Second Amendment was ratified in 1791, 8 years after the Revolution had ended in 1783.

 

[CFLarsen]

As noted elswhere, this claim is demonstrably false, Claus. Please review the resources with which you've been provided (whether you agree with them or not, they're quite clear).

I have replied in the other thread.

It isn't a question of whether or not I agree with them. I merely point to the fact that nobody seems to agree what it means.

 

[Wolverine]

Ed is absolutely correct. More importantly, however, it's simply unnecessary to delve into the minutiae. Claus, what you've already been presented with is supported directly by evidence. Surely you're not attempting to dispute this.

 

[Wolverine]

I have replied in the other thread.

It isn't a question of whether or not I agree with them. I merely point to the fact that nobody seems to agree what it means.

Previously, you posted the comments as others, which differed, in an attempt to imply disagreement. This is simply not so, and again, via the resources posted by myself and others, you may easlily see evidence which demonstrates your approach as logically fallacious. It's that simple.

 

[CFLarsen]

Previously, you posted the comments as others, which differed, in an attempt to imply disagreement. This is simply not so, and again, via the resources posted by myself and others, you may easlily see evidence which demonstrates your approach as logically fallacious. It's that simple.

I point out disagreement, and my point is logically fallacious?

OK, I get it.

 

[Wolverine]

I point out disagreement, and my point is logically fallacious?

OK, I get it.

No, you don't.

The only disagreement was between posters here, not the courts.

 

[Ed]

Ed is absolutely correct. More importantly, however, it's simply unnecessary to delve into the minutiae. Claus, what you've already been presented with is supported directly by evidence. Surely you're not attempting to dispute this.

I think that outsiders, and probably many US citizens don't realize how popular firearms and shooting sports are. Europeans are used to rulings from on high that effect all, a situation which is not present in the US. On gun ownership, take a look at when some of the Amendments were passed in my post above. Also, consider the map that I have appended that shows the state of pistol carry laws by state. Again, many of these laws are recent.

I think that people, even those that are disinterested, are becoming aware that the shrill caterwaulings of organizations like Handgun Control very often play fast and loose with the truth and that does get annoying after a time. Further, the fact that firearms laws tend not to be very effective has now been enshrined by a major CDC study (which, oddly, has not received much air time).

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

Also the fact that places that have loosened up carry laws are experiencing less crime and that murders are decreasing in the US as gun ownership increases all cuts the knees out from many of the contentions of those that want to ban guns.

Every now and then a case arises that underscores the fact that Law Enforcement has no legal obligation to protect a citizen. This also occupies some share of mind, particularly when absurd comments from cops in England to the effect that one ought to "yell loudly" if one feels threatened pop up.

Regardless of definitions, gun ownership in the US will expand and as I said, only change around the edges. This is why these threads are useless.

I should note that this map was published in American Rifleman within the past year so what it depicts is reasonably current.

 

[Wolverine]

Nicely put, Ed.

 

[Ed]

And finally, I'd like to present this linguistic analysis of the Second Amendment. I would have posted it before but was haveing a bit of trouble finding it. It is worth a read, and note that permission to copy is given (at the end). Note to add that I did not use bolds or enormous letters to highlight a number of the points made on this thread, I think that the gentleman's analysis should simply be read in it's entirety. I think that the main point is that the right is not predicated on a militia so that the initial questions regarding definitions are irrelevant.

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 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 profes- sor 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 a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the profes- sional 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 Dic- tionary, 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 Publisher's 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 indica- tion of why I was interested, I sent the following letter:

"I am writing you to ask you for your profession- al 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 for the securi- ty 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 re- stricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your profes- sional analysis will likely become part of litiga- tion regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be will- ing 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 test 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 impor- tance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance."
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 sub- ject, Professor Copperud sent me the follow analysis (into which I have 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, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'mili- tia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an 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 posses- sion 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 Amend- ment, 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 a 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 'sub- ject 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:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not 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 writ- ten today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary tot he 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 securi- ty 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 precise- ly parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.

"(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpreta- tion."

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 conclu- sion."
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 governments formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.

As I write this, the attempted coup against constitu- tional 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. Ameri- can citizens are put in American prisons for carrying arms, owning arms of forbidden sorts, or failing to satisfy bu- reaucratic requirements regarding the owning and carrying of firearms -- all of which is an abridgement of the uncondi- tional right of the people to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Constitution.

And even the American Civil Liberties Union (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 con- tinue obeying judges who decide that the Second Amendment doesn't mean what it says it means but means whatever they say it means in their Orwellian doublespeak ?

Or will be 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 fortuned, and our sacred honor ?

(C) 1991 by The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation. Informational reproduction of the entire arti- cle is hereby authorized provided the author, The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation are credited. All other rights reserved.

--damn, lost the citation, again--- I'll find it and add it.

HA! http://www.ulster.net/~jperz/unabridged.htm

 

[CFLarsen]

No, you don't.

I was being ironic.

The only disagreement was between posters here, not the courts.

Hardly.

 

[CFLarsen]

And finally, I'd like to present this linguistic analysis of the Second Amendment.

If there is a need for a linguistic analysis, then there is disagreement to what it means.

 

[Ed]

One last observation.

The analysis above notwithstanding, I cannot emphasize enough to non-USers how much the thinking of the Founders is taken into account when making decisions on the meaning of the Constitution.

Any reasonable reading of the writings of these folks will amply support the contention that they meant for the US population to be armed, militia or no militia. Therefore, again I state that taking the Amendment by itself is, ipso facto, out of context and could likely lead to an erronious interpretation. This is why, Claus, your parceing threads are too simplistic to shed much light on the issue.

The facts are:

- The FF wished for the populace to be armed
- There is a trend in the US for relaxation of gun laws at a State level
- There are approximately 250,000,000 firearms in the hands of approximately 80,000,000 people
- Nothing is going to change