Word Research expert assistance needed-- Court's Interpretation of the Second Amendment

Keep and Bear Arms ^ | 11.3.2003 | Angel Shamaya

[CHICAGOFARMER]

The words of the Second Amendment are likely to be considered by the U.S. Supreme Court soon. We are doing important research to that end and are asking for immediate help.

What we need:

1) Scanned images from old dictionaries -- 1750 to 1825 -- of certain definitions.

2) Dictionaries from 1750 to 1825 donated to us for use in this research.

If a nearby library has very old dictionaries, we need your help! Please scan the FRONT COVER, TITLE PAGE (and any other page with publication date) and the PAGE WITH THE DEFINITION of the words below. The definitions we need are listed below in order of importance; the first two are the most important:

regulated

infringed

keep

bear

militia

necessary

security

right

people

arms

We'd prefer to have them all but will take what we can get and be grateful. Scanned images should be 240dpi or better if possible.

If you can donate any old dictionaries, please mail them to:

KeepAndBearArms.com 1109 S. Plaza Way, #136 Flagstaff, Arizona 86001

If you either (A) own old dictionaries you are willing to donate or (B) are willing to do some research as described above, please contact Angel Shamaya directly at Director@KeepAndBearArms.com or (928) 522-8833 with details on what you will be doing to help. If you're just dropping a dictionary or two in the mail, please send an email about the book(s) -- name, publication date, etc. -- so we know what's on the way.

Thanks!

[findingtruth]

Bump

[Travis McGee]

[El Gato]

You want "well regulated" as a combination also. It has a special meaning over and above the combinaiton of "well" and "regulated".

[El Gato]

over and above the combinaiton of "well" and "regulated".

I mean over and above the meaning of "regulated" as modified by the adverb "well"

[El Gato]

The same goes for "the people", which as indicated in the Lopeze case, was a term of art used by the drafters of the Consitution and Bill of Rights. It means the same group of individuals in the first amendment (right of the people to petition for redress) the fourth amendment, (right of the people to be secure in their persons..), ninth amendment (other rights retained by the people) and tenth amendment (powers retained by the people). That much is a slam dunk. Grammatically it doesn't matter what or who the well-regulated militia is ether, the right belongs to the people. We should concentrate on "keep" "bear" "arms" and "infringe", IMHO, and assign the other words a lower priority.

Wish I was closer to where my wife is a professor, they have an excellent library, and their original collection, that is books they bought new, goes back to the 1840s, and some of the books were probably first published much earlier.

[El Gato]

as indicated in the Lopeze case

Wrong case, actually the case was United States v. Verdugo-Uriquidez 494 U.S. 259, 265 (1990), but you knew that, since it was contained in the Dissent by Judge Kleinfeld, from the 9th circuit, and is shown on your page

It's getting too late, I'd better stop putting my foot in my mouth.

[yonif]

[UbonGhostrider]

Well, the Supremes choose not to hear the Ten Commandments case, maybe because the outcome would not fit the agenda being forced down our throats. I wonder if they will dodge the 2nd Ammendment in similar fashion.

[Eastbound]

The oldest dictionary I have in the house is a 1937 Webster's New International Dictionary of the English Language, Second Edition, Unabridged, which, at the time was hailed as "An entirely new book utlizing all the experience and resources of more than 100 years of genuine Webster Dictionaries."

In 1937 the phrase, "to bear arms" meant "to serve as a soldier."

Personally, I have always exercised my right to protect my life, regardless of method. I don't need the Second Amendment to recognize that right nor to define it, nor does anyone else. I have the right to live unmolested by virtue of birth, not by virtue of any written law. If my attacker lunges at me with a 6-inch blade, I will counter with a 12-inch blade. If my attacker uses a .22 calibre, I will use a .45 calibre. And on up the scale. My attacker doesn't need a license for any particular weapon to kill me with and I don't need a license to prevent it.

Show me a government that denies people the right to defend themselves at the point of attack and I will show you a government that needs to be dis-emboweled.

Concerning the Second Amendment, it's clear to me that the states created the amendment as a mutual warning to any state, group, or government not to cross the border of another state with evil intent. The security of a free state depends upon the formation and presense of an armed and well-regulated militia and the 2A was an injunction against the federal government to not infringe on the responsibility of the state to protect it's Citizens. The 2A was also about the responsibility of the people to protect the state, and the nation when called upon.

It is also clear to me that Texas blew off that responsibility big time at Waco because it believed a lie --that the federal government should be better armed than Citizens, especially when prevailing against them in a battle over, the sheerest of irony, who should be better armed. Such as was proven at Waco at great cost of life over a $200 gun license.

Gun control, including licensing is not about safety or controlling crime. In fact, the reverse is true. It's about tyrants and bullies keeping the upper hand.

Don't fall into the trap of allowing the fedguv to define your right to defend your life by subscribing to any new interpretation of the Second Amendment. Remember. Government does not grant rights -- it alters them by issuing mandatory licenses.

[2nd_Amendment_Defender]

Here are some writings that I have gathered on doing research on the Second Amendment. Maybe something will help:

In May 1787, the delegates gathered at the Pennsylvania State House to "revise" the Articles of Confederation. Virginia delegate George Mason wrote, "The Eyes of the United States are turned upon this Assembly and their Expectations raised to a very anxious Degree." Mason had earlier written the Virginia Declaration of Rights that strongly influenced Thomas Jefferson in writing the first part of the Declaration of Independence.

Mason left this convention bitterly disappointed, however, and became one of the Constitution's most vocal opponents. "It has no declaration of rights," he was to state. Ultimately, George Mason's views prevailed. When James Madison drafted the Amendments to the Constitution that were to become the Bill of Rights, he drew heavily upon the ideas put forth in the Virginia Declaration of Rights.

A few of the sixteen Virginia Declaration of Rights are written below:

Section 1. That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

Section 10. That general warrants, whereby an officer or messenger may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, or whose offense is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are grievous and oppressive and ought not to be granted.

Section 13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

Section 13 adds a little more background to the Second Amendment of the Constitution. The Second Amendment reads: “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.”

A well-regulated militia means a well-maintained and armed body of men composed of the common people. George Mason said, "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." This Amendment emphasizes that such militias are necessary to secure the freedoms of the people. A free state was considered one in which citizens had inalienable rights, government derived its power from the governed, and the people had the right to alter or abolish the government if it became tyrannical. The right of citizens to keep and bear arms is the guarantee of that free state.

The Founding Fathers of the Constitution knew of the potential evils of standing armies in times of peace. In free states, the defense of the realm was considered best left to citizens who took up arms only when necessary and who returned to their communities and occupations when the danger passed. They observed that professional soldiers endangered liberty. Standing armies were viewed as instruments of fear. A main danger to a free republic was tyrannical government and the ultimate check on tyrannical government was an armed population.

[Badray]

bttt

[2nd_Amendment_Defender]

Men and women have unalienable rights -- rights that cannot be taken away -- if we recognize that they come from our Creator.

If they come from government then that's all they are, negotiable privileges: the state giveth, the state taketh away, blessed be the name of the state. If they come from God the purpose of government, as Jefferson went on to say, is to secure these rights, not to grant them. God has already granted them.

--John Eidsmoe

[El Gato]

Concerning the Second Amendment, it's clear to me that the states created the amendment as a mutual warning to any state, group, or government not to cross the border of another state with evil intent. The security of a free state depends upon the formation and presense of an armed and well-regulated militia and the 2A was an injunction against the federal government to not infringe on the responsibility of the state to protect it's Citizens. The 2A was also about the responsibility of the people to protect the state, and the nation when called upon.

Well the same, or very similar, language was found in the state constitutions of several of the original states, so the "message" was not primarily directed from the state governments to the federal government or other states, but rather towards protecting a "right of the people", to have the tools necessary to *preserve* a *free* state. The word "state" does not necessarily mean one of the states of the Union, but rather any nation or sovereign entity. Similar to the use of the word in "State Department", which in other countries is called the "Foreign Ministry" and which does not deal with the states of the union. A state government could just as easily turn tyrannical as the federal government could, except that the federal government is *supposed* to prevent that, under the "guarantee of republican government" clause of the Constitution. Maybe they should be looking into New York City, Chicago and others. I don't think Chicago has had a republican (small 'r') government since the 19th Century.

[KMAJ2]

If you are looking for a definitive analysis of the language of the Second Amendment, there is no better argument to present then this one exchange with J. Neil Schulman and Prof. Roy Copperud. As you read this, also keep in mind, the amendments of the Constitution are all about 'individual' liberty, and pay special attention to the fact that opponents will try to claim the introduction is a cluase, when it is not. If you read the writings of the founding fathers, there is no question as to their intention.

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 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 profes- sor 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 a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the profes- sional 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 Dic- tionary, 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 Publisher's 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 indica- tion of why I was interested, I sent the following letter:

"I am writing you to ask you for your profession- al 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 for the securi- ty 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 re- stricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your profes- sional analysis will likely become part of litiga- tion regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be will- ing 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 test 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 impor- tance 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 sub- ject, Professor Copperud sent me the follow analysis (into which I have 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, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'mili- tia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an 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 posses- sion 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 Amend- ment, 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 a 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 'sub- ject 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:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not 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 writ- ten 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 securi- ty 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 precise- ly parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.

"(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpreta- tion."

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 conclu- sion."
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 governments formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.

As I write this, the attempted coup against constitu- tional 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. Ameri- can citizens are put in American prisons for carrying arms, owning arms of forbidden sorts, or failing to satisfy bu- reaucratic requirements regarding the owning and carrying of firearms -- all of which is an abridgement of the uncondi- tional right of the people to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Constitution.

And even the American Civil Liberties Union (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 con- tinue obeying judges who decide that the Second Amendment doesn't mean what it says it means but means whatever they say it means in their Orwellian doublespeak ?

Or will be 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 fortuned, and our sacred honor ?

http://www.ulster.net/~jperz/unabridged.htm

[Robert Drobot]

Research bump

[Eastbound]

"Well the same, or very similar, language was found in the state constitutions of several of the original states, so the "message" was not primarily directed from the state governments to the federal government or other states, but rather towards protecting a "right of the people", to have the tools necessary to *preserve* a *free* state."

That would tend to eliminate the need for a state militia, then wouldn't it? Except for the sole purpose of coming under the command of the federal government to preserve the free 'state', i.e., America, or to put down tyrannical state governments, as you point out here:

"The word "state" does not necessarily mean one of the states of the Union, but rather any nation or sovereign entity."

So why not just have a federal 'standing army' to do that? I presumed the militias were formed to protect the state from any threat from a standing army. It's rather a convoluted situation, isn't it?

"A state government could just as easily turn tyrannical as the federal government could, except that the federal government is *supposed* to prevent that, under the "guarantee of republican government" clause of the Constitution."

Again, a federal standing army would have better served that purpose.

"Maybe they should be looking into New York City, Chicago and others. I don't think Chicago has had a republican (small 'r') government since the 19th Century."

In other words, the Second Amendment was a complete failure if it was established to prevent that.

[visualops]

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?
-- Alexander Hamilton

[visualops]

Bump!
Excellent post.

[CHICAGOFARMER]

We have excellent input. What we need help with is locating of very old dictionaries for word defination.

The posts are excellent and please continue bumping the post.



What we need:

1) Scanned images from old dictionaries -- 1750 to 1825 -- of certain definitions.

2) Dictionaries from 1750 to 1825 donated to us for use in this research.

If a nearby library has very old dictionaries, we need your help! Please scan the FRONT COVER, TITLE PAGE (and any other page with publication date) and the PAGE WITH THE DEFINITION of the words below. The definitions we need are listed below in order of importance; the first two are the most important: