Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Are Our Second Amendment Rights Hanging On A Comma?
Blogger News Network ^ | November 10, 2007

Posted on 11/10/2007 11:25:50 AM PST by theothercheek

Washington, D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty made good on his vow to contest the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruling that the city’s 1976 handgun ban is unconstitutional, because the Second Amendment applies to individuals as well as to militias - and the Supreme Court is now considering whether to take up the issue of what the Founding Fathers meant by these words: "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."

Should the high court decide to grant review, Legal Times reports that its ruling may not hinge on the actual words comprising the Second Amendment, but to the commas that separate those words into clauses:

Another suddenly intense debate is enveloping the case - this one over what all those commas in the Second Amendment meant in late 18th-century America.

It may sound way beyond trivial, but it's not: The grammar war is under way.

You can blame the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for igniting this esoteric debate. It ruled on March 9 that because of the Second Amendment's second comma, the first half of the amendment - the militia half - is basically a throat-clearing preface that does not qualify the individual right to bear arms that the second half protects.

Judge Laurence Silberman, who wrote the 2-1 decision, went on to conclude that the district's handgun ban violates that individual right.

Some grammarians believe that commas were often used to signal a breath pause for orators – which means there would be more of them than would be used today, and that they may not necessarily mean anything. Others argue that the commas divide the sentence into dependent and independent clauses – the trouble is there is sharp disagreement over which clause is dependent and which is independent.

Complicating matters even further the Second Amendment is a comma chameleon: The version that Congress approved in 1789 had three commas, while several states ratified a two-comma version.

The Stiletto shudders to think that her Second Amendment rights are dependent on the placement of a comma – especially considering what’s going on in Venezuela these days.

Note: The Stiletto writes about politics and other stuff at The Stiletto Blog.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: banglist; dc; dcgunban; guncontrol; heller; parker; scotus; secondamendment; supremecourt; thestiletto; thestilettoblog
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-137 next last
To: Stepan12
a well regulated militia being necessary... is NOT a present participle.

The present participle is a verb form ending in -ing

41 posted on 11/10/2007 12:18:48 PM PST by Military family member (GO Colts!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: theothercheek
The learned vocabulary and classic punctuation style of our revered Founders being decided by a modern society that uses the 'F'-word as a comma.

Well, that's just F'in great.

42 posted on 11/10/2007 12:20:44 PM PST by The KG9 Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: theothercheek; goldstategop
"Should the high court decide to grant review, Legal Times reports that its ruling may not hinge on the actual words comprising the Second Amendment, but to the commas that separate those words into clauses:"

"Our rights are God-given and implanted within us. They're not dependent on the placement of a comma for their existence." - goldstategop

Tell that to gun control advocates.

The only thing the "gun control advocates," need to know is that taking 280 million firearms from the People will be ugly, very ugly.

5.56mm

43 posted on 11/10/2007 12:21:21 PM PST by M Kehoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Gondring; theothercheek
The spacing of the words makes it seems that they did indeed goof and add an extraneous comma. But it is very difficult to confirm.

There was no "goof". The presence or absence of the commas makes absolutely no difference to the meaning of the sentence. It is simply a matter of style.

This whole line of argument is nothing more than a specious contrivance and sophistry.

44 posted on 11/10/2007 12:23:50 PM PST by tarheelswamprat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: tsomer
What part of “...shall not be infringed.” do they not understand?

They understand they haven't yet been tarred and feathered, so they assume they can infringe all they want.

45 posted on 11/10/2007 12:25:11 PM PST by ASA Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: All
This link takes one to a download of an image of the Bill of Rights from the National Archives site. Zoom in on the amendment (remember that two didn't pass, so it's listed as the Fourth), and though it appears to just have a leader for the "s" character, it's probably meant as a comma (as in the sixth ([fourth] amendment). It's tricky, though, because the text isn't consistent in spacing or the character shape.
46 posted on 11/10/2007 12:25:16 PM PST by Gondring (I'll give up my right to die when hell freezes over my dead body!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

Several “original” copies of the BoR are inconsistent on comma usage. Considering that other contemporary documents freely included or excluded commas, apparently commas were more optional decoration than definitive indicators of meaning.

Even if we go with the 3-comma version as definitive, what we end up with is a statement amounting to “a well-regulated militia IS the people keeping and bearing arms, whose right shall not be infringed”.


47 posted on 11/10/2007 12:25:42 PM PST by ctdonath2 (The color blue tastes like the square root of 0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

The printing press was invented long before the U.S. Constitution was written. I wonder what the first *printed* copy of the Constitution looks like.


48 posted on 11/10/2007 12:27:09 PM PST by nosofar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U

***“A Box of Jelly Donuts, being necessary to feed Elvis***

I like the way Charlie Reese said it years ago..

“A well educated elite, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to become educated shall not be infringed.”

Does this mean that ONLY the elite can be educated?


49 posted on 11/10/2007 12:28:14 PM PST by Ruy Dias de Bivar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: VanShuyten

I like to apply this approach to the 13th Amendment as well. It is clear from the commas that in the 13th Amendment that both slavery and involuntary servitude were prohibited unless as a result of sentencing by a court. (Thus the courts retained the ability to imprison people for various offenses.) Becuase of the ‘and’ connective and the comma, it is also clear that the courts retained the ability to enslave people for various offenses. Isn’t a lack of understanding of grammar fun?


50 posted on 11/10/2007 12:30:17 PM PST by 17th Miss Regt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: M Kehoe
The only thing the "gun control advocates," need to know is that taking 280 million firearms from the People will be ugly, very ugly.

It was a cakewalk in NOLA post-Katrina. I can't find any instances of homeowners shooting at gun-grabbing LEOs.

51 posted on 11/10/2007 12:30:27 PM PST by Spirochete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: theothercheek

This is Horse Manure!!! The Militia at that time was every able bodied male. Commas and shyster courts be damned!


52 posted on 11/10/2007 12:32:20 PM PST by Anti-Bubba182
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spirochete
It was a cakewalk in NOLA post-Katrina. I can't find any instances of homeowners shooting at gun-grabbing LEOs.

I appreciate your skepticism, but not exactly.

The city of New Orleans is in the middle of paying a price. I'm sure you are current with that (NRA Federal court).

Some people in New Orleans did refuse to part with their weapons. No shoot out occurred. Plus, the situation in Miami after Andrew was totally different. Everyone was armed, and there was little crime. Even in Liberty City.

Then again, in the Revolutionary War, only 33% of the colonists fought the King. Pretty bad odds, huh?

Again, I appreciate your skepticism, but what would go down, over time, would make our Civil War look like a walk in the park on a warm spring day.

Trust me.

5.56mm

53 posted on 11/10/2007 12:40:45 PM PST by M Kehoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: theothercheek
Any conclusion, however derived, that the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to individual citizens is a logical absurdity ignoring the text of the amendment itself.

To be able to call up a militia, the people from which that militia is called up must have arms... guns, and yes, even "assault" weapons.

[Sidebar: Switzerland is a beautiful example of what OUR Constitution says. The Swiss population is heavily armed... with military-style weapons.

The deterence of a heavily armed population is beyond argument. Hitler avoided Switzerland in WWII. Liberal historians claim it was the mountains that kept Hitler out. That is BS. Switzerland's heavily armed population kept Hitler out.]


The 2nd amendment is tied directly to Art 1 Sec 8 Par 12 declaring that no appropriation for an army shall be for more than two years, and Art 1 Sec 8 Par 16 declaring that militia officers and training shall be from the states involved, preserving state-loyalty.

Framers of the Constitution did not want America to have an ongoing military force. They intended that militias be called up from the population at large when the need for military force arises.

Reliance on called-up-militias is clear evidence that military force was intended to be used only to protect American soil from outside invasion or internal insurrection, and clear evidence that the Framers did not want America intervening in the affairs of other nations nor sending troops abroad.

I don't know how anyone can support the 2nd Amendment and support the war in Iraq. That war is clearly a violation of the Constitution's intent.
54 posted on 11/10/2007 12:42:52 PM PST by gpk9 ("Fairness" is the new Constitution and Bill of (no) Rights for America... I mean Amerika.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: theothercheek
...the trouble is there is sharp disagreement over which clause is dependent and which is independent.

Only among the completely illiterate. It says what it says and there isn't any honest doubt about it. There is a good deal of pettifogging, bluster, deliberate mischaracterization and wishful thinking, but no honest doubt.

The issue is over one of the most fundamental of civil rights, the right to self-protection and protection of one's family. That's one reason it is the Second, and not the Forty-fifth, Amendment. If there were needed any further proof of the utter corruption of the ACLU it would be the position they have taken on this civil right.

55 posted on 11/10/2007 12:44:32 PM PST by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: theothercheek
I think the amendment means exactly what it says. The militia was made up of men who owned their own guns, and could be called forward at a moment's notice. This idea of a ready militia is predicated on the RIGHT of those individuals to own a gun, thus being armed and available. If individuals didn't have the right to own a gun, what good would they have been, if their country had needed them?

So the right to own came before the militia.

56 posted on 11/10/2007 12:49:43 PM PST by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar
Does this mean that ONLY the elite can be educated?

Interesting question. Considering the state of much of public education, and the fact that the wealthy send their kids to private schools, the writer might indeed have meant exactly what YOU interpreted. ;o)

57 posted on 11/10/2007 12:53:11 PM PST by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
I think that if the you argue that the right of the people to keep arms is dependent on the need for a militia then it would be incumbent on you to make the argument that the militia is no longer necessary and then get enough votes to amend the constitution. The right is clearly enunciated and should not be canceled by interpretation. It is, as are all parts of the constitution, open to change by amendment but no one, not even the supreme court has the right just to nullify what they don’t like by fiat.
58 posted on 11/10/2007 12:53:33 PM PST by Old North State
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Bob
There was a lot of writing at the time of the constitution about the necessity of firearms in the hands of the “People”. Unfortunately the gun-grabbers of today can’t read.
59 posted on 11/10/2007 12:54:35 PM PST by ANGGAPO (LayteGulfBeachClub)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar

“Does this mean that ONLY the elite can be educated?”

No. And it wouldn’t mean that only Elvis could eat jelly donuts.

Bottom line is that it doesn’t matter the reason given for the right. It only matters that it is a right.


60 posted on 11/10/2007 1:03:20 PM PST by Beagle8U (FreeRepublic -- One stop shopping ....... Its the Conservative Super WalMart for news .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-137 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson