Posted on 11/10/2007 11:25:50 AM PST by theothercheek
Washington, D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty made good on his vow to contest the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruling that the city’s 1976 handgun ban is unconstitutional, because the Second Amendment applies to individuals as well as to militias - and the Supreme Court is now considering whether to take up the issue of what the Founding Fathers meant by these words: "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."
Should the high court decide to grant review, Legal Times reports that its ruling may not hinge on the actual words comprising the Second Amendment, but to the commas that separate those words into clauses:
Another suddenly intense debate is enveloping the case - this one over what all those commas in the Second Amendment meant in late 18th-century America.
It may sound way beyond trivial, but it's not: The grammar war is under way.
You can blame the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for igniting this esoteric debate. It ruled on March 9 that because of the Second Amendment's second comma, the first half of the amendment - the militia half - is basically a throat-clearing preface that does not qualify the individual right to bear arms that the second half protects.
Judge Laurence Silberman, who wrote the 2-1 decision, went on to conclude that the district's handgun ban violates that individual right.
Some grammarians believe that commas were often used to signal a breath pause for orators – which means there would be more of them than would be used today, and that they may not necessarily mean anything. Others argue that the commas divide the sentence into dependent and independent clauses – the trouble is there is sharp disagreement over which clause is dependent and which is independent.
Complicating matters even further the Second Amendment is a comma chameleon: The version that Congress approved in 1789 had three commas, while several states ratified a two-comma version.
The Stiletto shudders to think that her Second Amendment rights are dependent on the placement of a comma – especially considering what’s going on in Venezuela these days.
Note: The Stiletto writes about politics and other stuff at The Stiletto Blog.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Tell that to gun control advocates.
What part of “...shall not be infringed.” do they not understand?
Either both parties have not mentioned it to the 2nd circuit or the 2nd circuit ignored the argument.
Many people are vulnerable to physical force; a gun in the hands of a responsible citizen is the equalizer.
I learned the hard way that our rights are enumerated — not granted.
Some stranger corrected me on the usage in public.
Only in the Second Amendment, when interpreted by gun grabbers, does "the people" refer to some collective right.
This is what we get if we follow the road of a “living, breathing Constitution:....because when they rip one part of it out, they will rip it all apart...IF we let them.
Meadow Muffin
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
There are only 2 ways to look at it:
1 The right to bear arms depends on the militia;
2 The militia depends on the right to bear arms.
How can any literate person read 2A and not see which one is the correct reading?
That said, I’m sure sorry they phrased it that way, but how could they know that 200 years of progress would make so many fools?
Wrong question. "Are Constitutional limitations preventing government from violating our right to self-defense hanging on a comma?"
Government has no power to give rights and no authority to take them. When that principle is overthrown our Constitution has been overthrown. At that point I will still be a sovereign individual and the government will be an outlaw.
IBrp. RIP.
“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 Box of Jelly Donuts, being necessary to feed Elvis, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
It means exactly the same thing reguardless of the reason the founders gave for putting it in.
Wonder what would happen if it went the way of Prohibition? Black market guns, right? The value of which would increase a thousand fold ... BTW, read where there are 99 guns per 100 population ... try taking them ....
The slightest bit of reading of the Founders' contemporaneous statements on bearing arms would instantly disabuse folks of any thought that they only envisioned the 2nd as a collective right.
Yes, and the commas are there because it’s extra information, not the core of the sentence.
Meadow Muffin
btt
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.