Supreme Court takes on first 2nd Amendment case in 11 years (lawyer, military)

[Dave_n_Tenn]

I always want less regulation. I want practical regulation. In terms of the 2nd amendment... we have WAY too much conflicting regulation that is politically motivated. With that said... no one should own nuclear submarines or a battle ready Abrams tank or artillery.... unless it shoots potatoes.

[Roboteer]

Originally Posted by Dave_n_Tenn

I always want less regulation. I want practical regulation.

Despite the 2nd amendment saying that ALL regulation of guns is forbidden?

The people who wrote and ratified the 2nd amendment believed that society would be safer and more prosperous if govt had NO authority to decide who could own and carry a gun, than if it did have any such authority. They were well familiar with govt taking more and more authority once you gave them even a little.

And thieves, murderers and crazy people were just as plentiful in George Washington's time, as they are today. And he and his compatriots STILL were sure we would be better off overall, even if such people had access to guns etc., than if govt had the power to regulate or forbid them.

So unlike other parts of the BOR, they wrote the 2nd amendment with NO exceptions. The right shall not be infringed, period. And they even added an explanation why.

[Jeerleader]

Originally Posted by Dave_n_Tenn

Ships of commerce we protected by the shipper. The ships had defensive weapons. You know they were never intended to defend our nation... that's a false narrative.

Privateers in the American Revolution

These armed ships were addressed in the Constitution where Congress was granted the power to regulate their maintenance and use on the seas -- essentially disabling any "right" the private citizen possessed to arm and sail a ship he owned.

"Congress shall have the power; To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"

.

[Roboteer]

Originally Posted by Dave_n_Tenn

I did not redefine ARMS... I explored the term in an historical context. I reached an understanding of what it means based on study at the time the 2nd amendment was written. History and context is important then as it is today. Seek to understand then to be understood.

In 1787 here was the definition of ARMS :
Black's Law Dictionary defines the word arms as "anything that a man wears for his defense, or takes in his hands as a weapon.

(sigh)

OK, I guess we need to get it out of the way for the 582nd time....

------------------------------------------

Reproduced in full with written permission from the author (see below):

J. Neil Schulman: The Unabridged Second Amendment

The Unabridged Second Amendment

by J.Neil Schulman

Author, Stopping Power: Why 70 Million Americans Own Guns & Self Control Not Gun Control
Webmaster, The World Wide Web Gun Defense Clock

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

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 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 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."

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.

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, ProfessorCopperud 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.


(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.

[swagger]

Originally Posted by Roboteer

(C) 1991 by The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation.

Life member.

[Quick Enough]

Originally Posted by Jeerleader

Only posters who go off on wild tangents and lose all connection to the flow of the conversation.



My first post to you (#107) was agreeing with you and expanded on the point you made to Dave_n_Tenn (about military useful arms being protected -- as opposed to arms appropriate for "individual defense" as Dave_n_Tenn seemed to suggest.

You came back at me as if I was trashing what you said, you dismiss any discussion of the Court's determinations and regurgitate a stale pile of copy and paste founder's quotes . . . As if that is determinative in the legal reality of 2020. That was the fantasy; believing the Court's actions don't matter as long as you have some obsure quotes from someone long dead to hang your tricorn hat on.

Your post 108 was a trip down a path of total disconnect with reality; and I called it out as such.



No, I didn't say that; that was atltechdude in post #110.


In fact I rebutted his post 110 in post 112. . .



.

"You came back at me as if I was trashing what you said, you dismiss any discussion of the Court's determinations and regurgitate a stale pile of copy and paste founder's quotes"

So, you DON'T agree withe the people who WROTE the Constitution. YOU are smarter and more important then they are.

Judges are SUPPOSED to look at the HISTORY or a law, WHY it was written and what the writers meant when they wrote them.

MOST "interpret", another word for NOT agreeing with the original writers, based on their own beliefs instead of the FACTS and reasoning behind the law.

The Constitution and specifically the 2nd amendment, is written in plain English so the average person can understand it. We also have writings from the fathers supporting they WHY they wrote it but, you want to IGNORE what they said because it does NOT fit your own position on the issue.

You would rather believe someone hundreds of years later TELLING YOU what the Founders meant.

Then lawyers come along hundreds of years later try to tell us what it means.

You are basing your OPINION on the OPINION of someone who did NOT write it, when the WRITERS said just the OPPOSITE.

Reminds me of "depends on the meaning of the word "is" is"

Your "rebuttals" mean NOTHING to me because you act like a lawyer contorting the meaning of words to suit your own biases.

" The RIGHT of the PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR ARMS shall NOT be INFRINGED. Plain and simple. NOT lawyer gobbledygook!

[Quick Enough]

Originally Posted by Dave_n_Tenn

Ships of commerce we protected by the shipper. The ships had defensive weapons. You know they were never intended to defend our nation... that's a false narrative. Even today many ships of commerce carry defensive weapons.

The founders had disagreement over a standing army. To say "the founders" suggests they ALL were opposed to a standing ARMY... again false. If that was the case the War of 1812 would have ended in defeat.

I did not redefine ARMS... I explored the term in an historical context. I reached an understanding of what it means based on study at the time the 2nd amendment was written. History and context is important then as it is today. Seek to understand then to be understood.

In 1787 here was the definition of ARMS :
Black's Law Dictionary defines the word arms as "anything that a man wears for his defense, or takes in his hands as a weapon.

Earlier times Arms was a symbol of protection (defense) and wore upon the chest or a Coat of Arms. Latin arma means weapons and from said word comes the word armor. Words have meanings in historical context. Therefore for us the word arms, must be understood within the entire second amendment.

The simple yet complex use of language in the second amendment, has been the source of much consternation, this is why I seek to understand.

"you know they were never intended to defend our nation... that's a false narrative"

YOUR opinion is a false narrative. President Jefferson CONTRACTED "warship" and the owners for their services.

"The simple yet complex use of language in the second amendment, has been the source of much consternation, this is why I seek to understand"

There is NOTHING complex about it. A simple read and following up with what the witters said about is is ALL anyone needs.

Did you bother to READ the quotes from the Founders that I supplied?

[Finn_Jarber]

Originally Posted by Quick Enough

"so it would have zero effect on places like Florida."

It could. Most states have Unconstitutional laws on the books. If the SC rules this law is unconstitutional, many more suits in a lot of states will follow.

What's the point when NYC had already repealed the law on their own initiative?

[Cape Cod Todd]

And... what is the point of all this debate in the streets, the forums and in the courts when at the end of the day any new law that is proposed, written or rewritten to further restrict the Rights of citizens will do absolutely nothing to stop the criminals that would use a gun in an unlawful manner to violate their victims Rights like no Government ever could?

[Jeerleader]

Originally Posted by Quick Enough

"You came back at me as if I was trashing what you said, you dismiss any discussion of the Court's determinations and regurgitate a stale pile of copy and paste founder's quotes"

So, you DON'T agree withe the people who WROTE the Constitution. YOU are smarter and more important then they are.

I do agree with the quotes you posted on what the RKBA is; I don't agree WITH YOU that those quotes alone are what we (or the Court) should rely on to decide the constitutionality of challenged laws today.

I'm saying that in the immediate discussion, of what the Court is doing and saying and how it applies the 2nd Amendment in 2020 (which means applying the 2nd Amendment to state laws), quotes of the founders / framers can not be the primary source . . . especially given the fact that those guys declined making the Bill of Rights enforceable on the states.

So, are you saying we should follow the gospel of the founders, erase the 14th Amendment and allow states like NJ, NY, MD and CA to do whatever they want, within the confines of their state constitutions -- given the fact that those states have no RKBA provision in their constitutions?

Originally Posted by Quick Enough

Judges are SUPPOSED to look at the HISTORY or a law, WHY it was written and what the writers meant when they wrote them.

To be true to that, only the quotes of the framers when debating the proposed Amendments would be informative. None of the quotes you have provided are from those debates and thus are not examining "why the [2nd Amendment] was written", anymore than a Senator on Meet the Press discussing a law would be the binding legal explanation of Congressional intent for that law.

So, about this "history" that you so deeply revere . . . How do you address the 14th Amendment? The people you quote were long dead and were quite content with the 2nd Amendment not having any effect on state gun control. Are you OK with that?

Originally Posted by Quick Enough

The Constitution and specifically the 2nd amendment, is written in plain English so the average person can understand it. We also have writings from the fathers supporting they WHY they wrote it but, you want to IGNORE what they said because it does NOT fit your own position on the issue.

In effect and action, the framers did not intend the Bill of Rights to have any action on state laws. That was changed by the 14th Amendment and not recognized for the 2nd Amendment until 2010 by SCOTUS who examined the intent of the framers of that Amendment.

You can not ignore the 14th Amendment and how it profoundly altered "the intent of the founders / framers". The job of examining and defining how the federal Bill of Rights is enforced on the states by the 14th is the job and duty of the Supreme Court whether you like it or not.

Originally Posted by Quick Enough

You are basing your OPINION on the OPINION of someone who did NOT write it, when the WRITERS said just the OPPOSITE.

But in fact I don't disagree, my opinion and belief about the 2nd Amendment is perfectly in-line with the founders / framers. In fact the SCOTUS isn't far from it either now and will get closer if it grants cert in a couple of the cases it is discussing today.

But to the point of your claim, can you point out anything (especially in post 107) I have said that conflicts with the founders / framers?

Originally Posted by Quick Enough

Your "rebuttals" mean NOTHING to me because you act like a lawyer contorting the meaning of words to suit your own biases.

Again, it would be good if you could quote something I said that conflicts with any sentiment represented in the quotes you provided.

Originally Posted by Quick Enough

"The RIGHT of the PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR ARMS shall NOT be INFRINGED. Plain and simple. NOT lawyer gobbledygook!

Why did Madison oppose adding a bill of rights to the Constitution? Would Madison (even after he was persuaded to agree with adding a bill of rights) approve of your reliance on words as the descriptor and substance of the right?

Don't you realize that you waving around words as the essence and protector of the right, are wedging yourself into being forced to accept the (evolving) definition of those words? Your leaning so heavily on the words of the 2nd Amendment and pointing to them in such a "simple" manner, is what gives fancy-pants lawyers the wiggle room to redefine and dilute and negate what those words meant to the founders / framers and in action, dilute and negate the right.


.