From: schabel@calspan.com (Dave Schabel)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: Calspan Advanced Technology Center
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 17:24:44 GMT


In article <1992Sep8.001404.16988@rotag.mi.org> you write:
>
>Why should I accept Fletcher as an authority on the meaning of the words,
>Russ, any more than any other scholar? What's so special about him?
>
>In fact, why should I even CONSULT Fletcher's works, when the meaning of
>the Amendment is crystal clear (to me, at least), and doesn't require any 
>necrotelepathy at all to "disambiguate" it?
>
Well, in that case, I defer to your obvious expertise on Constitutional
history, Constitutional Law, and the English language.  Seriously,
though, many "experts" have argued both sides for decades (curiously
enough, there was very little disagreement until the 20th Century that
the 2nd covered about as much as the NRA says it does); I don't believe
that it is quite as "crystal clear" as you say it is.

I have appended an article from a real "linguistics expert" concerning
the wording in question.  Please read it.  My apologies to anyone who
has already seen it.

>
[snip]
>
>Both of these, together, seem to rule out the "any yahoo who can pull a
>trigger" NRA interpretation...

Glad to see you're open minded.

>
>							- Kevin

					Dave Schabel

Here's the article I referred to above:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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 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."

[(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.]



Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals