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 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 a distinguished 17-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 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 indication of why I was
interested, I sent the following letter:
"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 for 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 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 importance 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 subject, 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 'militia,' 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 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 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 '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:] "(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 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 governments 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 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
continue 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 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?
(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.
To return to our home page, click:
