🚀 go-pugleaf

In <380qel$g11@news.utdallas.edu> goyal@utdallas.edu (Mohit K Goyal) writes:

>Correct.  The 2nd amendment clearly states that citizens have the right
>to bear arms for a state militia.  The 2nd amendment was written a long
>time ago, when there was no national army.  A number of courts have ruled
>as such.(that the 2nd amend. refers to an armed state militia, not the
>right of every person to have guns)  it'll make its way to the top of
>the court system eventually I'm sure. (through appeals and opposing
>decisions)

Looks like I get to dig this out once again for the grammatically
impaired: 

Amendment II:

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 first part of the sentence is a dependent clause, the second part
is an independent clause.  So, what is the implication of the
dependent clause?  First, a "militia":

US Code, Title 10, Section 311:

  (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males
      at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of 
      title 32 [which adds retired military under 64], under 45 years
      of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intent to
      become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of 
      the United States who are commissioned officers of the National Guard.
  (b) The classes of the militia are --
       (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National
           Guard and the Naval Militia; and
       (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members
           of the militia who are not members of the National Guard
           or the Naval Militia.

US Code, Title 10 section 312:
  (a) The following persons are exempt from militia duty:
       (1) The Vice President.
       (2) The judicial and executive officers of the United States, the
	   several States and Territories, and Puerto Rico.
       (3) Members of the armed forces, except members who are not on
	   active duty.
       (4) Customhouse clerks.
       (5) Persons employed by the United States in the transmission of
	   mail.
       (6) Workmen employed in armories, arsenals, and naval shipyards of
    	   the United States.
       (7) Pilots on navigable waters.
       (8) Mariners in the sea service of a citizen of, or a merchant in,
	   the United States.
  (b) A person who claims exemption because of religious belief is exempt
      from militia duty in a combatant capacity, if the conscientious 
      holding of that belief is established under such regulations as 
      the President may prescribe.  However, such a person is not
      exempt from militia duty that the President determines to be 
      noncombatant.

It really becomes clear if you consider the meaning of "well regulated
militia" at the time the Second Amendment was written.  According to
the 1971 Oxford English Dictionary:

* Regulated
	b.  Of troops: properly disciplined. Obs. rare.
   		1690 - London Gazette "We heard likewise that the French
		are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not
		having at present 1500 men of regulated troops on that side."

Note that this usage is now considered obsolete.  Also note the circa
1690 example.

* Discipline

Noun:
        3.b. Training in the practice of arms and military evolutions;
        drill.  Formerly, more widely, training or skill in military
        affairs generally; military skills and experience; the art of war.

Verb:
        1.b. To train in military exercises and prompt action in
        response to command; to drill.
        	1692 - "Orders were come from England to discipline 
		the militia".
        	1792 - "A farmer... may be a good soldier if you take
		care to have him properly disciplined."

The phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd is about shooting straight (and
other military skills), and NOT about being under control of the
government.

* Militia

Noun:
        4.b. U.S. The whole body of men declared by law amenable to military
        service, without enlistment, whether armed and drilled or not.

Paraphrasing "well-regulated militia" as "body of private citizens
proficient with arms" is perfectly consistent with the usage of the
time.  It's also consistent with U.S. law (see above).

My continuing thanks to Reid Kneeland (reid@tti.com) for the material
from the OED.  He added:

But all of this linguistic quibbling is unnecessary, since Jefferson,
Washington, Mason and others made it quite clear in other writings that
they considered an armed public a necessary safeguard against tyrannical
government.  You can argue that this is no longer an effective deterrent,
or that the costs now outweigh the benefits because of societal changes,
but you cannot challenge the original meaning.  It's too well established
in the writings of the period.

Here are some sample quotations:

"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few
public officials."
		George Mason, 3 Elliott, Debates at 425-426

"The Constitution shall never be construed...to prevent the people of the
United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." 
		Samuel Adams, Debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the
		Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87

"A free people ought..to be armed..."
		George Washington, speech of January 7, 1790

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither
inclined nor determined to commit crimes.  Such laws make things worse for
the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to
encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with
greater confidence than an armed one." 
		Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria, Criminologist 1764.

As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them,
may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be
occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to
the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the
article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.
		Tench Coxe in "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments
		to the Federal Constitution." Under a pseudonym "A Pennsyl-
		vanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18,1789

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.  The strongest
reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as
a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
                Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, June 1776
                1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C. J. Boyd, Ed., 1950).

To disarm the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave them.
                George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380

The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be
properly armed.
                Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

Arms in the hands of citizens (may) be used at individual
discretion... in private self-defense...
                John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the 
	        Governments of the UAS, 471 (1788)

Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself.  They
are the American people's liberty teeth and the keystone under
independence... The rifle and pistol are equally indispensable...  The
very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil
interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good.
		George Washington

The great object is that every man be armed and everyone who is able
may have a gun.
                Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the
                ratification of the U.S. Constitution.

And finally:

On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry
ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted,
recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying
what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it,
conform to the probable one in which it was passed.
        	Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

But you don't have to take my word for it:

The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and
wording of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and
court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that
what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own
and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.
                Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the
                Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate,
                97th Congress, Second Session (February 1982)


If you believe that the Second Amendment has outlived its usefulness,
then you should repeal it, rather than trying to subvert its original
intent.  The first 10 amendments (the Bill of Rights) were added for
good reason, and the Constitution wouldn't have been ratified by some
of the original states without them.

The Constitutional Amendment process is clearly spelled out in Article
V.  Proposal of an Amendment requires 2/3's agreement by both the
House and the Senate (or the states), and ratification requires the
consent of 3/4's of the states.  The Amendment process was
intentionally made difficult to discourage "tyranny of the majority".

There is precedent for repeal of an Amendment: The 21st Amendment
repealed the 18th Amendment (which introduced Prohibition).  Frankly,
I think you would find repeal of the 2nd Amendment much more difficult.

Followups set to tx.guns.

-- 
Paul Barnett        Convex Computer Corp.
MPP OS Development  Richardson, TX