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 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. >>> Continued to next message --- þ OLX 2.1 TD þ "Liberty is NOT the highest value."-Mike Beard, gunbanner --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: THE BULLET BOX / PRN, So. Pasadena, CA (176:700/11.0) 0SEEN-BY: 1/3 100/0 15 17 200 102/230 200/0 43 300/0 400/0 2 4 6 7 9 13 15 16 17 0SEEN-BY: 400/19 24 26 28 29 32 100 500/0 12 600/0 700/0 1 10 11 12 18 22 100 0SEEN-BY: 700/410 513 610 612 613 0PATH: 700/11 0 100/0 400/0 From: Neil Schulman #0 @176:700/11 via 176:400/0 PRNet Re: Unabridged 2nd 2/3 0AREA:PR_NET 0MSGID: 176:700/11.0 8811A9E4 0TID: WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 92-0508 >>> Continued from previous message [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? *************************************************************** I was looking at the "View" section of the LA Times from December 18, 1991 today -- an article on James Michener which my wife Kate had saved for me to read -- when the beginning of Jack Smith's column caught my eye: "Roy Copperud had no sooner died the other day than I had occasion to consult his excellent book, 'American Usage and Style: The Consensus.'" Thus I learned of the death a few weeks ago of Roy Copperud, the retired USC professor whom I commissioned to do a grammatical analysis of the Second Amendment this past summer. (My article was published in the September 13th issue of \Gun Week\.) It seems to have been one of the last projects he worked on. It is certainly one of the most important. >>> Continued to next message --- þ OLX 2.1 TD þ "Liberty is NOT the highest value."-Mike Beard, gunbanner --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: THE BULLET BOX / PRN, So. Pasadena, CA (176:700/11.0) 0SEEN-BY: 1/3 100/0 15 17 200 102/230 200/0 43 300/0 400/0 2 4 6 7 9 13 15 16 17 0SEEN-BY: 400/19 24 26 28 29 32 100 500/0 12 600/0 700/0 1 10 11 12 18 22 100 0SEEN-BY: 700/410 513 610 612 613 0PATH: 700/11 0 100/0 400/0 From: Neil Schulman #0 @176:700/11 via 176:400/0 PRNet Re: Unabridged 2nd 3/3 0AREA:PR_NET 0MSGID: 176:700/11.0 8811A9E5 0TID: WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 92-0508 >>> Continued from previous message Roy Copperud told me afterwards that he, personally, favored gun control, but his analysis of the Second Amendment made clear that its protections of the right of the people to keep and bear arms were unaffected by its reference to militia. This sort of intellectual and professional honesty is sorely lacking in public discourse today. In my several letters and phone conversations with Professor Copperud, I found him to be a gentleman of the old school. The planet is a little poorer without him. J. Neil Schulman December 27, 1991 A NOTE ON THE "WELL-REGULATED MILITIA" "A well-regulated militia" in the preamble to the Second Amendment means "civilians who are trained how to use arms," as opposed to army regulars. In essence, the Second Amendment means, "Since it is necessary for the security of a free society that civilians know how to use arms, the right of the people to own and carry arms shall not be abridged." While Professor Copperud was technically correct that the meanings of the words haven't changed in 200 years -- the definition of "militia" in the dictionary and on the law books hasn't changed -- the public understanding of the word "militia" has been corrupted so most people today believe that the "militia" is a military unit rather than a civilian concept. This is precisely the "war is peace and freedom is slavery" corruption of language that George Orwell warned us against in \Nineteen eighty four\. As far as the legal standing of the right to keep and bear arms in this country, it's mixed. The Supreme Court has never made a ruling on the second amendment \per se\ and given the current make-up of the Court, it must make Handgun Control, Inc., very nervous to contemplate what would happen if a Second Amendment case \does\ reach the Supreme Court. FROM A DISCUSSION ON GEnie Barry, Message 126: There is \no\ "limiting prefix" in the Second Amendment. Two prominent, impartial linguistic experts - - one considered the tops in his field -- analyzed the text of the Second Amendment and came to this conclusion. Read Message 72 and 73 in this topic for the full text of their analyses. On the interpretation of the Constitution. Article 9 of the amendments reads, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." That is instruction from the framers on how the constitution is to be "construed" -- that is, "constructed." The \Oxford English Dictionary\ does not give a definition of "well-regulated" but instead gives citations for its use. Here are its citations, which bracket the writing of the Second Amendment: 1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well- regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations." 1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world." 1812: "The equation of time .. is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial." 1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Major." 1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding." 1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well- regulated American embryo city." Find me "regulation" by an outside authority in any of these uses. Neil J. NEIL SCHULMAN is the author of two Prometheus award- winning novels, Alongside Night and The Rainbow Cadenza, short fiction, nonfiction, and screenwritings, including the CBS Twilight Zone episode "Profile in Silver." His latest book is STOPPING POWER: Why 70 Million Americans Own Guns. Schulman has been published in the Los Angeles Times and other national newspapers, as well as National Review, Reason, Liberty, and other magazines. His LA Times article "If Gun Laws Work, Why Are We Afraid?" won the James Madison Award from the Second Amendment Foundation. Schulman's books have been praised by Nobel laureate Milton Friedman, Anthony Burgess, Robert A. Heinlein, Colin Wilson, and many other prominent individuals. Charlton Heston said of STOPPING POWER: "Mr. Schulman's book is the most cogent explanation of the gun issue I have yet read. He presents the assault on the Second Amendment in frighteningly clear terms. Even the extremists who would ban firearms will learn from his lucid prose." Reply to: J. Neil Schulman Mail: P.O. Box 94, Long Beach, CA 90801-0094 JNS BBS: 1-310-839-7653,,,,25 Internet: softserv@genie.geis.com Post as filename: UNABRIDG.TXT --- þ OLX 2.1 TD þ "Liberty is NOT the highest value."-Mike Beard, gunbanner --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: THE BULLET BOX / PRN, So. Pasadena, CA (176:700/11.0) 0SEEN-BY: 1/3 100/0 15 17 200 102/230 200/0 43 300/0 400/0 2 4 6 7 9 13 15 16 17 0SEEN-BY: 400/19 24 26 28 29 32 100 500/0 12 600/0 700/0 1 10 11 12 18 22 100 0SEEN-BY: 700/410 513 610 612 613 0PATH: 700/11 0 100/0 400/0