2nd Amendment, Scalia and what the Founders meant: Commas, Common Sense and Justice. The question is how to interpret the comma after 'free state.'

[marvin martian]

Doesn't it say something about "A well regulated Militia"?

They couldn't be more clear about it yet to you righties this is vague?

Get your fascist hands off my civil rights, Nazi.

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

Poor fakey mcfakerson, spreading lies per usual.

Being exposed as a sockpuppet triggered Westwall into a reply spree.

 

[westwall]

Being exposed as a sockpuppet triggered Westwall into a reply spree.
View attachment 1269805

Ummmm...you're replying to me fakey mcfakerson.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Which is true.

2A was militia-centric for over two centuries, you want to pettifog on 'since Heller moot'. Good for you, M14 shooter, you're an amazing internet warrior.

Give me a break.

I'm sorry you do not like the fact your point is moot, but there's not much I can do about it.
Maybe you should find a better point?

Oh wait - here's one:

Note that I did not say or imply to eliminate 2A, my point was that it should be revised, i.e.., modernized.

Given your argument - the militia is no longer necessary to preserve a free state - this 'modernization' would be fully accomplished by amending the Amendment to read:

Amendment II(A): The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Agree?

 

[M14 Shooter]

2A was militia-centric for over two centuries....

In terms of what?
The SC has only ever held the 2A protects an individual right independent of the militia; it has never once held the 2A protects a right depending on a person's association with / membership in the militia.

 

[Dante]

I actually read decisions. Go back...

Dante has far more intellectual depth than ten of you, as he reads arguments and decisions before mouthing off like you do.

Was the PPACA -- Known as Obamacare, Ruled a Tax?

I almost forgot this about Harry Dresden

 

[Harry Dresden]

I almost forgot this about Harry Dresden

did you dream about me again dante?...

 

[Seymour Flops]

This argument has been around for a very long time. The question is how to interpret the comma after “free state.” It's incredible that it took a heavily stacked court to rule as they did. I support gun ownership. Have been a gun owner. I have never been in or desired to join a militia. Why would I? I'm no Timothy McVeigh.


Opinion | Commas, Common Sense and Justice - John McWhorter - You’re reading the John McWhorter newsletter. A Columbia University linguist explores how race and language shape our politics and culture.

Like language itself, punctuation is always in a state of flux.

If you are of a certain age, notice how you are likely using exclamation points more lately. It has become a mark of agreeability in a way that would mystify a time traveler from as recently as a couple decades ago. “See you in a bit!” “I looked for you yesterday but you weren’t there!” I now email like that.

This is part of a long story Florence Hazrat tells in “On the Mark: From Periods to Interrobangs, How Punctuation Remade the World,” due out in August...

It’s a roller coaster of a story. Ancient Greek had no spaces between words, Hazrat writes, and Aristophanes of Byzantium, a librarian in Alexandria, found it cumbersome...

In considering how the history of punctuation can affect history itself, Hazrat touches on the role of commas in the 2008 Supreme Court ruling that the Constitution’s Second Amendment — “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” — protects the rights of all people, not just militia members, to possess firearms. Hazrat finds the reasoning behind the ruling, District of Columbia v. Heller, is absurd. I agree.

The question is how to interpret the comma after “free state.” Justice Antonin Scalia, the author of the ruling, wrote that the comma set apart a mere preface to the “operative clause” of the amendment — the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Hazrat writes that Scalia’s analysis followed the tradition of the most conservative pro-gun advocates to take the part of the amendment before that comma as throat-clearing, with all the intention of the amendment coming after that comma. Scalia argued that that preface in no way qualified or limited the intention of the Bill of Rights’ framers.

Essentially Scalia argued that the Founders meant, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms — something separate — shall not be infringed.”

Hazrat argues that commas should play no role in interpreting the amendment...

Rather, we should accept the most plausible interpretation of what the words mean. Until this century there was a broad understanding that the Founders meant that all clauses of the amendment, no matter how many there are, should be read together. As in, people should be able to bear arms to serve in a militia, not just for any reason they want.

I would add that the comma is less the issue than that Scalia’s interpretation is hopelessly forced. Scalia persuasively argued that in the late 18th century, “bear arms” referred to using weapons in various ways, not just in a militia. But it still leaves a crucial question: Why would the Founders bring up one type of gun ownership — when serving in a militia — if they wanted to approve all kinds of gun ownership? If they wanted to preface their proclamation, as Scalia claimed, they could have mentioned not only serving in a militia, but self-defense and hunting.

Under Scalia’s analysis, the following sentence would pass muster: “Basketball, aiding in health, sports, shall be encouraged.” Such a sentence is beyond clumsy.

It insults the Founders to suppose that this sort of convolution was the best they could do when adjudicating something of such gravity.

It comes down to this: “Officials, being prone to partisan bias, Supreme Court justices, should interpret language according to what is most intuitive.”

My interpretation is that the commas are wrong and there is no need to try to interpret them. Either that or they were following some rules of comma usage that have changed.

The comma between "arms" and "shall" makes no sense at all.

I don't know why the sentence was cobbled together that way, but I suspect that it was some kind of compromise and the framers did not want to keep copying and re-copying in the days of feather pens.

 

[Dante]

did you dream about me again dante?...

I could not believe one person could bleed so much -- from the butt

 

[Dante]

My interpretation is that the commas are wrong and there is no need to try to interpret them. Either that or they were following some rules of comma usage that have changed.

The comma between "arms" and "shall" makes no sense at all.

I don't know why the sentence was cobbled together that way, but I suspect that it was some kind of compromise and the framers did not want to keep copying and re-copying in the days of feather pens.

People go back in time to what and how it was written.

 

[Harry Dresden]

I could not believe one person could bleed so much -- from the butt

so you pretended your boyfriend was me?...lol...is he all right...

 

[Seymour Flops]

People go back in time to what and how it was written.

I had no idea that technology had advanced that far!

 

[Dante]

I had no idea that technology had advanced that far!

try and keep up

 

[Rumpole]

Westwall is a sockpuppet of a member named Meister. He gives himself thumbs up across accounts.

Really? I didn't know folks were doing that

 

[Rumpole]

I'm sorry you do not like the fact your point is moot, but there's not much I can do about it.
Maybe you should find a better point?

Oh wait - here's one:

Note that I did not say or imply to eliminate 2A, my point was that it should be revised, i.e.., modernized.

Given your argument - the militia is no longer necessary to preserve a free state - this 'modernization' would be fully accomplished by amending the Amendment to read:

Amendment II(A): The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Agree?

I agree that 2A should be revised, but as to what that revision would be, it would be silly for me to speculate on what shape it should take. Clearly, the 'militia' reference is an anachronism.

 

[Rumpole]

"I know you are, but what am I"

So much for your dazzling wit, and erudite conversation.

Your feeble attempt at posturing aside, It appears you want to carry the conversation to a sand box. Sorry, I abandoned the practice some 73 years ago, and that might be your thing, but it's not mine,

 

[Rumpole]

In terms of what?
The SC has only ever held the 2A protects an individual right independent of the militia; it has never once held the 2A protects a right depending on a person's association with / membership in the militia.

Let’s actually read the history instead of just treating the Second Amendment like a magical, all-powerful incantation.

For nearly two centuries, the Supreme Court did the exact opposite of what you’re claiming. Look at the Miller case back in 1939. It wasn't a footnote; it was the law of the land for almost seventy years. A unanimous Supreme Court openly ruled that the Second Amendment didn’t protect a short-barreled shotgun because that weapon had zero reasonable relation to the efficiency of a well-regulated militia. The Court explicitly stated that the entire purpose of the amendment was to guarantee the continuation and effectiveness of state military bodies. For generations, every single federal court used Miller to slam the door on the idea of an unrestricted individual right, tying gun ownership strictly to collective militia service.

Even further back, in nineteenth-century cases like Cruikshank and Presser, the Court viewed the amendment as a protection for state security and federalism, not an individual blank check for self-defense. In Presser, they literally upheld a state ban on citizens forming private armed groups.

The idea that the right is entirely independent of the militia did not exist in Supreme Court jurisprudence until Heller in 2008. That is why Heller was such a political and legal earthquake. Justice Scalia had to spend dozens of pages jumping through semantic hoops just to explain away the phrase "A well regulated Militia," treating the opening sentence of the amendment like an irrelevant piece of legal decoration. If the Court had "only ever" protected an independent individual right, Heller wouldn't have been a landmark 5-to-4 decision that overturned decades of precedent—it would have been an open-and-shut case. You are inventing a history that simply does not exist on the books

 

[Stryder50]

The right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Not the right of the militia
Not the right of the people in the militia
The right of the people.

As no one has the right to associate with the militia in any way, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and the exercise thereof, as protected by the 2nd, MUST exist independent of a person's relationship to the militia.

Thus: The court got it right.

Also, while many will read in terms of "only" firearms, "arms" includes swords, spears, battle-axes, bows-n-arrows, crossbows, catapults, cannons, bazookas, etc. ....

 

[Stryder50]

Instead of bumper sticker style sloganeering, try addressing the content here:

Essentially Scalia argued that the Founders meant, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms — something separate — shall not be infringed.”

Hazrat argues that commas should play no role in interpreting the amendment...

Rather, we should accept the most plausible interpretation of what the words mean. Until this century there was a broad understanding that the Founders meant that all clauses of the amendment, no matter how many there are, should be read together. As in, people should be able to bear arms to serve in a militia, not just for any reason they want.

I would add that the comma is less the issue than that Scalia’s interpretation is hopelessly forced. Scalia persuasively argued that in the late 18th century, “bear arms” referred to using weapons in various ways, not just in a militia. But it still leaves a crucial question: Why would the Founders bring up one type of gun ownership — when serving in a militia — if they wanted to approve all kinds of gun ownership? If they wanted to preface their proclamation, as Scalia claimed, they could have mentioned not only serving in a militia, but self-defense and hunting.

Under Scalia’s analysis, the following sentence would pass muster: “Basketball, aiding in health, sports, shall be encouraged.” Such a sentence is beyond clumsy.

It insults the Founders to suppose that this sort of convolution was the best they could do when adjudicating something of such gravity.

You might try reading other items written in mid to late 18th century for comparison and context; of spelling, punctuation, grammar, etc.
Language(s) change over passage of time.

 

[Stryder50]

Bullshit. It couldn't be more obvious. I can't believe you guys choose to ignore

I can't believe you completely ignore the first 4 words of the 2nd amendment.

We can't believe you are so stupid of history to not grasp the context.
The USA had just fought a war and gained independence because it had militias in nearly every community.

April 1775 is the real birth of the USA when local militias first exchanged shots with the British Army at battles of Concord and Lexington.

BTW, you might want to check out how ownership of arms plays out in Switzerland.