THE UNABRIDGED SECOND AMENDMENT

 

The following is reprinted from the September 13, 1991 issue

of GUN WEEK:

                 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?

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 others rights reserved.