Posted on 11/20/2007 10:12:34 AM PST by Pyro7480
Why was this removed from Breaking News? This has more comments, and was posted first.
Incorrect - Fred is VERY pro the 2nd amendment.
Gentlemen, break out the Solothurns.
Well, the case starts out ahead....the USSC would have to overturn the DC Court of Appeals to rule disfavorably.
Second, if the Miller case is revisited, it can easily be demonstrated that a short-barrel shotgun does indeed have military uses (trench clearing, for example, as was used in Vietnam).
Third, I think it will be difficult for the USSC to come to a narrow decision on this. The only plausible narrow decision is that DC is not a state. I can’t see that happening.
It all comes down to Justice Kennedy. And he’s been right-leaning lately.
Not so fast. The usually dependably statist Ginsburg has already voted for the individual RKBA, IIRC, and Scalia sometimes votes "conservative" as opposed to "Constitutional", in favor of the government over their masters.
Don’t I wish, that tree has been looking mighty thirsty for far too many years...
The question is narrowly tailored, on the one hand, but it is a very important and clear first step, on the other hand.
The Court will need to define the scope of the 2A as it relates to individual rights versus a collective right [you know, the “National Guard” nonsense].
That is step 1. Other steps, assuming step 1 is successful, are incorporation into state laws, defining “bear” [as in carry around], applying strict scrutiny for restrictions on the right to bear, and so on.
Other steps, assuming step 1 is successful, are incorporation into state laws, defining “bear” [as in carry around], applying strict scrutiny for restrictions on the right to bear, and so on.
The key will be whether or not they consider the “unorganized” militia in the ruling. I don’t like the tightly defined question they are going to answer.
“Among mainstream GOP candidates, only Hunter is solid on gun rights, McCain and Thompson appear neutral and Romney and Guiliani are openly hostile.”
All except Rooty, Mutt, and McCain have pretty solid records of defending the 2nd Amendment, even Paul.
And everything else, then SSS.
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 other rights reserved.
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.
***************************************************************
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.
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
------------------------------ End of Article ---------------------------------------
Duncan Hunter on Gun Control from On The Issues:
* Let DC residents keep guns, then maybe ok to let them vote. (Sep 2007)
* Criminals prefer unarmed victims. (Sep 2007)
* Voted YES on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers. (Oct 2005)
* Voted YES on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse. (Apr 2003)
* Voted YES on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999)
* Rated A+ by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun rights voting record. (Dec 2003)
Fred Thompson on Gun Control from On The Issues:
* Strongly supports the Second Amendment. (Sep 2007)
* Allowing concealed carry could have limited VA Tech massacre. (Apr 2007)
* Having handguns in your home is a Constitutional right. (Mar 2007)
* Voted NO on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
* Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)
* Voted YES on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
* Voted YES on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks. (Jul 1998)
RFN...Run, don't walk.
Also buy up as much reloading components as possible, esp. primers, even if you don't reload.
Rule of thumb:
10 magazines per semi-auto rifle(20 preferable).
4-8 pistol magazines per person, per gun.
4-8 revolver speed loaders per gun, per person.
20-50,000 rounds per belt fed plus about 10 barrels and spare parts kits ( if you are lucky enough to have one).
4-5,000 rounds per person, per gun for battle rifles.
1-2,000 rounds per person, per gun for center-fire pistols;
500 rounds per person, per gun for shotguns.
10,000 rounds+ of .22 cal. LR. Have at LEAST one pistol, one revolver, one bolt action, and one lever action or semi-auto .22 cal. LR. If the shooting starts, the little .22 LR might be the most underestimated rifle on the "urban battlefield".
Misc. gear:
Have 1-5% of your ammo either on stripper clips or in the magazines at <50 percent capacity. For instance. If you have an AR 15 and 2k rounds, have 150 rounds on stripper clips, and the other 50 rounds in 5 magazines. I know thats only 10 rounds per magazine, but it saves your springs for long term storage. In an emergency, you can use the "ready mags", and given time, or a reloader while you maintain security, the rest are for stripper clips.
Next: How do you carry all of this ammo and spare parts?
Easy, have a bug out bag for all your ammo. Go to an army/navy surplus store and barter for alot of those old vietnam alice packs and frames.....stuff your ammo in here to just lug around and throw into your vehicle incase of relocation.
Always have the ability to hide your "stash". Invest in a GPS, a map, pen, paper, trash bags, shovel, pick, saw, compass, and lots of cosmoline and PVC pipe. Learn how to make a "treasure tree" to guide you to where you hide your ammo and spare parts. DO THIS NOW BECAUSE IF ANY GUN IS BANNED, THESE SUPPLIES WILL EVAPORATE! In addition, federal agents may monitor those items used to bury your "now illegal" items immediately before or after a ban through cameras, visa/mc transactions, etc.
Spare parts kits:
You should have a spare spring and pin to every gun you have. Springs and pins are pretty hard to make. You can always mill a piece of metal, but springs and pins are hard to manufacture in a pinch. Try to keep the spare parts compliant with NFA laws since some parts violate the unconstitutional 1934 NFA Act.
Thats about all I can think of on top of my head.....you guys want to comment on "when the balloon goes up" stuff to have?
They could weasel out just because D.C. isn’t a state.
Not necessarily, unless the justices can introduce that on their own. DC has already argued in other cases that they are statish enough so that the BOR applies within their boundaries, so they shouldn’t be able to change their mind now.
This is a win-win situation.
-If the SC decides to be real Americans and uphold the 2nd ammendment, then we win.
-If the SC goes all Commie on us, then candidates with even the slightest record or whisper of being a gun grabber will lose the Republican nomination.
Uhhh, typically how fast will the supreme court act on this issue after decided to take a case? I surely hope it isn’t AFTER the primaries.
I hope you are right.
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.