Can somebody parse the 2nd Amendment for me, please?

[ghettopettingzoo]

What i think it means is to where a sleveless shirt but thats what i think. Shh dont tell the goverment that. What it means is you can have a gun. But other laws say what guns u can have like full auto silancers crap like that.

 

[moa]

My understanding of a "well regulated militia", as defined in the 2nd Amendment, is that the possible citizen members of the "militia" were responsible for acquiring and maintaining their weapons and ammo, and being proficient in there use. And this covers more than firearms.

The States did not have the resources to arm and maintain a standing militia, and therefore the citizens had to fulfill that mission literally at a moments notice, and possibly on a large scale.

Our State National Guards are considered by Federal law to be the regular militia, but they can be called up to support the operations of the US Government, and the States have no say in the matter. IIRC, this was decided some time ago by the SCOTUS.

 

[jimpeel]

Unique 5.7

"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."

Actually, there is no parsing needed but if one were to do so they would start with what can be removed from the statement and still preserve a full sentence structure.

The antis tend to focus on the portion of the sentence that states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" but that does not form a cognitive sentence. Neither does "A well regulated Militia" or "being necessary to the security of a free State" stand alone as a sentence of and by themselves.

Also, if the clause "being necessary to the security of a free State" is removed thus forming "A well regulated Militia, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." a full cognitive sentence is also not formed.

The only portion of the sentence that stays cognitive is the portion which states "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Reduced to this simplicity, the true meaning of the Amendment is unmistakable by all but those with a counter agenda.

 

[LAK]

Hugh Damright

... What the Second Amendment is saying is that self-government requires an armed people...

Agree fully; and do not see how it can be understood to be any other way.

 

[berettusmaximus]

Look at most state constitutions

Most state constitutions, most of which are modeled after the federal Constitution, have right to bear arms text that doesn't even make any mention of a militia. Take the Wyoming constitution for example:

The right of citizens to bear arms in defense
of themselves and of the state shall not be denied.

-Article I, Section 24, Wyoming State Constitution

 

[BillCA]

In fact, to push this political theory to its very extreme, a free State might ban every gun but one model and require that anyone having that gun keep it locked up at home with the ammo stored separately.

I'll say that I understand your example as you meant it, however the wording are less than desirable.

A law, such as you describe, requiring arms to be stored under lock and key violates the 2nd Amendment.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

To bear arms is to carry them; to have them with one's person. Technically, the broadest interpretation of the 2nd Amendment would strike down every state law prohibiting the open carry of firearms and possibly concealed ones as well.

And just a minor note -- the Amendment does not refer solely to firearms. Its meaning is equally applicable to such items as knives, swords, dirks, daggers, load bearing vests, tactical lights, laser sights, gilhie suits, helmets and even body armor, as these are all "arms" of the soldier, past and present. The helmet, gilhie suit and armor can be traced back to British common law which required a leather breast plate and helmet for longbowmen and lancers.

 

[LAK]

I think in principle, and reflected in the codification, the relationship between the free state and the bearing of arms, is that the latter be not infringed - remain unfettered - in order that the former is maintained. Thus it would be contrary to the meaning and intent of the codification that the free state infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms.

So while I would agree with Hugh's basic definition of the free state, the rights of it's citizens - codified or not - can not be infringed upon or denied.

Interesting that in the Wyoming Constitution quoted by berettusmaximus there are no exceptions allowed for in this particular codification.

moa

..... The States did not have the resources to arm and maintain a standing militia, and therefore the citizens had to fulfill that mission literally at a moments notice, and possibly on a large scale.

There was never the intention to have a standing militia - or army. Only a navy to defend our borders.

Our State National Guards are considered by Federal law to be the regular militia, but they can be called up to support the operations of the US Government, and the States have no say in the matter. IIRC, this was decided some time ago by the SCOTUS.

The State National Guard are the organized militia. See Title 10 Section 311 of the United States Code.

 

[Unique 5.7]

Thanks, Jimpeel. I have managed to collar a couple of English grad students. The consensus seems to be that the sentence cannot be fully parsed, which is what I thought, but I'm not an expert. I suspect this was done on purpose by the authors for the issue to be battled out at a later date. I know I would be much happier if the first four words were not in the 2nd Amendment.

 

[TheBluesMan]

Excuse me for being a little curt, but you have been provided with numerous examples of a parsed Second Amendment throughout this thread and still, it seems, you refuse to accept any of it. I cannot understand this. Could you please explain?

The best example that I have seen by Copperud and Schulman was posted by Hkmp5sd: http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1513229&postcount=4
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1513232&postcount=5

I posted a number of links to other sites where the Second was parsed: http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1513481&postcount=6

After all that you respond:

Er, is anybody able to parse the sentence yet?

After I replied that the information had been supplied to you already, you reply:

Hopefully, we'll have somebody who can parse it or authoritatively explain why it can't be parsed.

What the hell, man! It's right here in this thread as you requested!

I have managed to collar a couple of English grad students. The consensus seems to be that the sentence cannot be fully parsed...

It is apparent to me that you made up your mind long before you made your request and you won't allow any pesky facts get in the way.

 

[progunner1957]

The Militia IS NOT the National Guard

Here are the 'talking points' (as they call them these days) I use when some Demoliberal schmuck tries to assert that "the Militia" means the National Guard and not the people:

1.) The Second Amendment was ratified in 1787. The National Guard was not formed until 1917, 130 years later. So what you are saying is: The Founders were referring to the National Guard which DID NOT EXSIST in 1787 and was something of which THEY HAD NO KNOWLEDGE.

2.) In defining "the Militia," James Madison, father of the Second Amendment said: "I ask, sir, what is the Militia? It is the WHOLE PEOPLE, except for a few public officials." (From the debate before the Virginia Assembly to ratify the Constitution).

3.) The Militia is defined by federal law: "the Militia of the United States shall consist of all able bodied males at least 17 years of age..." Title 10, Section 11, United States Code.

These three points destroy the "Militia is the National Guard" nonsense. In my experience, this will either shut them up or they will change the subject because their position in indefensible.

 

[Unique 5.7]

TheBluesMan - I'm not refusing to accept anything. I have thanked posters here twice, including you. You did get testy right away with your comment about if I "insist" upon a closer examination. I don't know what's up with that.
But, you were most helpful in particular, I was very interested in Eugene Volokh's testimony, especially as it referred to the 1792 Militia Act and the Militia Act in 1956. The militia is defined as all able-bodied male citizens between the ages of 17-45. Well, there is a trap there if it is argued that the right to bear arms is an individual right based upon this. If the militia is used as the justification, then it begs the question of how people not defined as being in the militia have the right to bear arms. As the success of that argument would affect gun rights adversely, I certainly don't want to get caught out on that argument. BTW, if anybody has a good counter to that argument, please let gun rights advocates know.
Sometimes you have to look at the race horse you love and realize it is too crippled to run the race. I'm very fearful that the 2nd Amendment is challengeable on the issue I raised and it will do no good to not recognize it as a potential liability and thereby fail to address it. For the moment, it seems to me that state-by-state efforts to legalize CCW is the way to go. Along with addressing how much places of public accommodation can restrict the lawful bearing of arms in states where CCW is legal. This is an area where paying attention to legal arguments made mostly by liberals can be used to promote gun rights. It hardly matters if CCW is legal, but is so restricted that you really can't go out and run errands around town without leaving your gun in the car almost all the time. Or, what if you are not using a car, but public transport?

Restrictive clauses, subordinate clauses, two clauses, there is a lot of debate over this. I wanted to look at a purely literal parsing, this clause, noun, verb, dangling participle, etc. first. But, the sentence is so recognizable and politically loaded, I should have known better! My bad. LOL

 

[Jungle Work]

Can somebody parse the 2nd Amendment for me, please?
yes,

FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!

Jungle Work

 

[BillCA]

TheBluesMan - I'm not refusing to accept anything. I have thanked posters here twice, including you. You did get testy right away with your comment about if I "insist" upon a closer examination. I don't know what's up with that.

Unique,
Perhaps if you could describe what it is that you are asking for in your "parsing" of the 2A we could help you out.

To date, the most professional analysis of the 2A that I'm aware of was done by Professor Roy Copperud at J. Neil Schulman's request. (as posted by HKMP5sd on 3/14).

If Copprud's analysis, which would require him to "parse" the 2A, doesn't provide you with sufficient information to answer your question, then perhaps there's something we don't understand about the question?

 

[Hugh Damright]

So while I would agree with Hugh's basic definition of the free state, the rights of it's citizens - codified or not - can not be infringed upon or denied.

I cannot agree.

I can agree that there are certain political rights that are crucial in a free or self-governing State. For instance, a free State requires a free press, free assembly, free speech ...

My best example is Maryland in the 1860's. Maryland wanted to secede. If Maryland had been allowed to function as a free or self-governing State, I believe they would have seceded. This is to me the picture of a free State: the Citizens of Maryland freely exercising their collective right to choose whether to secede or not.

And so Lincoln performed certain acts in Maryland ... for instance, he had the federal army shut down any press which called for secession, so that every newspaper the Citizens of Maryland saw was opposed to secession. And any members of the Maryland State Legislature who wanted secession were replaced with federal puppets. People would assemble and be jailed ... I believe tens of thousands were jailed for free assembly. What I am trying to get at is that things like a free press, free speech, free assembly, and such are political rights or necessary to the security of a free State. But CCW is not necessary to self-government and so it is not a political right. It is not an aspect of government but rather an aspect of culture and society and as such is a State affair.

The people of the States are free, subject only to restrictions in the Constitution itself or in constitutionally authorized Acts of Congress, to define the moral, political, and legal character of their lives. - Ronald Reagan

Suppose for the sake of argument that every single Virginian was opposed to CCW. Who would you be to tell Virginians that CCW is a "right"? That is your own personal view. The way I understand the concept of a free State, you don't tell Virginians what our "rights" are, we tell you.

 

[BreacherUp!]

"..who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system."

I, for one, would not use that title anywhere in the academic world for fear of uproarus laughter.

 

[Hugh Damright]

To bear arms is to carry them; to have them with one's person. Technically, the broadest interpretation of the 2nd Amendment would strike down every state law prohibiting the open carry of firearms and possibly concealed ones as well.

I carry a gun for the purpose of self-defense but I do not consider that to be a Second Amendment issue. I do not believe the federal government has jurisdiction over self-defense, I believe it is a State affair. Most of the State Constitutions recognize the RKBA in defense of the self or in defense of the State. Some go so far as to recognize the RKBA for hunting and plinking. But I do not see how things like self-defense, hunting, or plinking are federal affairs and so I do not see the Second Amendment as regarding such individual rights. I believe the Second Amendment properly regards only the RKBA in defense of the State ... those pesky free States.

To me, the broadest interpretation of the Second Amendment would be that Virginians have a collective right to keep and bear arms as we might need in Civil War so as to provide us a check against the US.

What you describe is, to me, an extremist view of the 14th Amendment, not of the 2nd.

 

[LAK]

Hugh

That is your own personal view. The way I understand the concept of a free State, you don't tell Virginians what our "rights" are, we tell you.

Right; Virginians did, when the State of Virgina was founded. And what does the Virginia Constitution - of that free state - say about the right to bear arms?

"... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed ..."

There is your answer. It is a right, and is recognized as such. The right to keep and bear arms can be considered a basic political right. This right is part of the underpinning of the free state.

 

[Hugh Damright]

The right to keep and bear arms can be considered a basic political right.

Yes, but a political right must be related to our form of government. I think we can agree that a free State requires that a people be armed for the ultimate purpose of being able to stand up to their own government and alter or abolish it. In a free State the people have a collective RKBA to alter or abolish government, while in a monarchy there is no such political right.

But CCW is not an aspect of free government, a free State is free to decide how it wants to handle CCW. Even in a monarchy we might have CCW or the individual right to shoot burglars. I expect we had such rights under King George. But we did not have a legal/political right to take over our own government.

If you can convince me that CCW is necessary to the security of self-government, then I will have to reconsider my position.


Edited to add .... The Second regards the right to keep and bear arms but I believe that has a specific meaning. It doesn't protect the right to keep and bear arms against bears or burglars or just for fun. It regards bearing arms against government for the purpose of reclaiming self-government.

 

[progunner1957]

Rights do not come from the government or words on paper

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that EVERY man is endowed by The CREATOR with certain INALIENABLE rights, among them, LIFE, LIBERTY and the pursuit of happiness."
-The Declaration of Independence, 1776

To wit:
1.) Rights are given to man straight from the hand of God, not from the government or from words on paper.
2.) Without inalienable rights, there is no liberty.
3.) The right to life is meaningless without the right to defend life.

By ratifying the Second Amendment in 1787, the people, through the Founders, affirmed by force of law that the RIGHT of the PEOPLE to keep and BEAR arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED.

To wit:
Presidents, Senators, Representatives, politicians, bureaucrats, lawmen and judges WILL NOT interfere IN ANY WAY with the people's RIGHT to own and carry arms. To do so in any way is to violate their oath of office, to violate the Constitution and to declare themselves criminal, the enemy of the people and illegitimate holders of their office as well as unfit for the office they hold.

When the founding documents of our nation - the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights - are read in the light in which they were written, which is that they actually MEAN exactly what they SAY, it is obvious that outlawing or banning:

.50 caliber rifles
"Assault weapons"
Handguns
Long range scoped rifles
Any arm firing a "military" cartridge
NORMAL capacity magazines
Powder
Primers
Bullets
Reloading presses
Powder measuring devices
FN "five seven" handgun
S&W 500 magnum revolver
Nationwide concealed carry
Concealed carry onboard commercial aircraft
Carry in the Post Office
Carry in the Courthouse
Carry on school grounds
Carry at Wal Mart
Carry at the bank
The right to arms of those involved in a divorce proceeding
The right to arms of those who have used deadly force in LEGITIMATE self defense
The right to arms of those ACCUSED but not CONVICTED of domestic violence

Is unconstitutional, unlawful and a voilation of the rights of the free citizens of the United States.

Those who commit violent felony crimes are barred by law from owning or carying arms; when a person commits a violent felony crime, they forfeit a measure of their rights, such as the right to vote, the right to hold a passport and travel internationally and the right to arms. By their actions, they have shown themselves to be the enemy of the law abiding citizen.

What about "interpreting" the Constitution? Judges, lawyers, peosecutors and legislators were never meant to "interpret the Constitution".
Judges and courts are meant to interpret the LAW, not the Constitution.

Why?

Because the Constitution means exactly what it says.

 

[Hugh Damright]

When you say rights are given by God, you are talking about religion. It is your religion, not ours. Virginians believe that God gave us a right to govern ourselves and that includes passing gun laws. As long as our gun laws respect the right of the general population to be armed so as to provide a check on government, then God is on our side and we are the keepers of the true biblical values.