Can commas shoot down gun control?

[willbrink]

Can commas shoot down gun control?

A grammarian takes issue with a court decision that picks apart clauses
of the 2nd Amendment.

By Dennis Baron
Professor of English at the University of Illinois
March 22, 2007

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-baron22mar22,0,5526874.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail

CITING THE second comma of the 2nd Amendment, the U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled March 9 that district
residents may keep guns ready to shoot in their homes.

Plaintiffs in Shelly Parker et al vs. District of Columbia were
challenging laws that strictly limited who could own handguns and how
they must be stored. This is the first time a federal appeals court used
the 2nd Amendment to strike down a gun law, and legal experts say the
issue could wind up in the Supreme Court.

While the D.C. Circuit Court focused only on the second comma, the 2nd
Amendment to the Constitution actually has three: "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 2-1
majority of judges held that the meaning turns on the second comma,
which "divides the Amendment into two clauses; the first is prefatory,
and the second operative."

The court dismissed the prefatory clause about militias as not central
to the amendment and concluded that the operative clause prevents the
government from interfering with an individual's right to tote a gun.
Needless to say, the National Rifle Assn. is very happy with this
interpretation. But I dissent. Strict constructionists, such as the
majority on the appeals court, might do better to interpret the 2nd
Amendment based not on what they learned about commas in college but on
what the framers actually thought about commas in the 18th century.

The most popular grammars in the framers' day were written by Robert
Lowth (1762) and Lindley Murray (1795). Though both are concerned with
correcting writing mistakes, neither dwells much on punctuation. Lowth
calls punctuation "imperfect," with few precise rules and many
exceptions. Murray adds that commas signal a pause for breath. Here's an
example of such a pause, from the Constitution: "The judicial power of
the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court" (Article III,
Section 1). But times change. If a student put that comma in a paper
today, it would be marked wrong.

The first comma in the 2nd Amendment signals a pause. At first glance,
it looks like it's setting off a phrase in apposition, but by the time
you get to the second comma, even if you don't know what a phrase in
apposition is, you realize that it doesn't do that. That second comma
identifies what grammarians call an absolute clause, which modifies the
entire subsequent clause. Murray gave this example: "His father dying,
he succeeded to the estate." With such absolute constructions, the
second clause follows logically from the first.

So, the 2nd Amendment's second comma tells us that the subsequent
clauses, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed," are the logical result of what preceded the comma: "A well
regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State." The
third comma, the one after "Arms," just signals a pause. But the
justices repeatedly dropped that final comma altogether when quoting the
2nd Amendment - not wise if you're arguing that commas are vital to
meaning.

But that's just my interpretation. As the D.C. Circuit Court decision
shows us, punctuation doesn't make meaning, people do. And until a
higher court says otherwise, people who swear by punctuation will hold
onto their commas until they're pried from their cold, dead hands.

 

[Tim James]

Poor analysis. He says the justices "might do better to interpret the 2nd Amendment based ... on what the framers actually thought about commas in the 18th century," but he never mentions any evidence of the framers' intention.

Then he quotes a grammar Nazi from the 18th century who says punctuation is "'imperfect,' with few precise rules and many exceptions."

Finally, he states his own interpretation of what the commas mean to him.

D+ on this paper, sir. The other analyses I've seen on this made a lot more sense.

 

[shield20]

I agree - NOW can I buy MY M4??!



Of course, 1 clause is STILL restrictive, commas or not.

 

[KarlG]

Why would you focus on the constitutional framers' thoughts on commas to interpret the 2nd amendment? Why not focus on the framers' thoughts on bearing arms?

 

[mudstud]

My thoughts exactly, Karl. Kinda reminds me of the old saw, "Figures don't lie, but liars figure."

 

[nico]

Professor of English at the University of Illinois

. . . the first strike against his credibility

Wasn't there a literary scholar who was interviewed a few years ago about the meaning of the punctuation and sentence structure of the 2nd Amendment who came to the exact opposite conclusion?

 

[Autolycus]

Yes there was.

How about we look at the Framers quotes and writings regarding the private ownership of arms? Then we look at the same for what the militia is?

Somehow I dont think the author would like that.

 

[Standing Wolf]

The most popular grammars in the framers' day were written by Robert Lowth (1762) and Lindley Murray (1795). Though both are concerned with correcting writing mistakes, neither dwells much on punctuation. Lowth calls punctuation "imperfect," with few precise rules and many exceptions. Murray adds that commas signal a pause for breath.

In truth, English punctuation never has been codified, and people still teach students to use commas whenever they would pause for breath.

English language grammar, spelling, and punctuation have always been rather a hodgepodge. Plenty of purported authorities have attempted to impose order upon the ways we write our language, but with amazing consistency, writers ignore them. I have a hunch that with the exception of the British in the twentieth century, English speakers have been too independent-minded to accept authority.

I first encountered the "commas signal pauses for breath" theory from a friend my freshman year of college. His engineering English professor handed it down as incontrovertible fact. That same professor, later in the semester, handed down another incontrovertible fact: O. Henry was one of the greatest writers of all time, because virtually everything he wrote had a surprise ending.

Does that seem preposterous? Yes, but that's my point: to this day, anyone and everyone who can speak English can pose as a credible authority, meaning there is no authority.

Personally, I see that as one of the greatest strengths of our language.

As for the Second Amendment's commas: nothing hinges upon them, nor ever did, nor ever will. Adding and/or subtracting and/or moving and/or quibbling about commas does nothing to change the obvious meaning, nor in any way alters the founding fathers' clear, well documented intent in including it in the Bill of Rights. It means exactly what it says.

 

[cuchulainn]

What Standing Wolf said.

Sheesh, even spelling wasn't much standardized(*) in the 18th Century (thus the 19th Century divergence of U.S. and British spellings). The belief in grammar rules as the absolute fiat of the Word Gods of Mount Syntax typically is the result of angry fourth grade teachers playing out the abuse of their angry fourth grade teachers. Grammar nazis beget grammar nazis the same way that wife beaters beget wife beaters.

Yeah, I’m another English major – although it’s the worst thing for remembering whatever standardized rules are in vogue because you spend much of your time reading and analyzing stuff that’s either archaic or, um, “innovative.” I could spell in high school. Twenty years after college, I'm still struggling.

(*) For example: "all experience hath shewn," Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence.


.

 

[Ieyasu]

Poor analysis. He says the justices "might do better to interpret the 2nd Amendment based ... on what the framers actually thought about commas in the 18th century," but he never mentions any evidence of the framers' intention.

Irrelevant. The letter-to-the-editor was only discussing the court's interpetation of the commas.

Then he quotes a grammar Nazi from the 18th century who says punctuation is "'imperfect,' with few precise rules and many exceptions."

Translation... the author quotes an authority for which the poster has no rebuttal.

Finally, he states his own interpretation of what the commas mean to him.

He's merely pointing out the inconsistency of the court's interpretation of comma usage and the absurdity of even mentioning them.

Some info about commas and the 2A: http://guncite.com/second_amendment_commas.html

 

[geekWithA.45]

The issue of the various commas in 2A comes up every couple of years.

There are several variants, depending on which state's copy of the B of R you're looking at.

At the end of the day, the general concensus is that the various permutations of the commas have no semantic impact.

 

[Tim James]

Poor analysis. He says the justices "might do better to interpret the 2nd Amendment based ... on what the framers actually thought about commas in the 18th century," but he never mentions any evidence of the framers' intention.

Irrelevant. The letter-to-the-editor was only discussing the court's interpetation of the commas.

Misunderstood. You thought I meant the framers intention on bearing arms, but I meant that he never mentions any evidence of the framers' thoughts on commas. That leaves his original statement lacking support and hanging out in thin air. Minus 10 points for him, minus 5 for me for being unclear to you.

Translation... the author quotes an authority for which the poster has no rebuttal.

Which, again, is useless in an opinion piece that is trying to assert a point of view. That is, until you helped clarify his point with your next statement:

He's merely pointing out the inconsistency of the court's interpretation of comma usage and the absurdity of even mentioning them.

That's a good way of reading this editorial -- he is throwing out a bunch of statements and basically saying that because of all that, it's silly for the Justices to try to find meaning based on commas. There was no clear meaning back then. Interesting point.

He still gets a D+ because it took me 4 readings and a hint from you to figure out what the hell he was trying to do. Contrary to what English professors think, that does not mean his editorial is subtle; it means it is poorly written and difficult to understand.

 

[One of Many]

Only ONE Comma appears consistently

Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, 1789-1793
FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 1789.

Quote:
On motion to adopt the fifth article of the amendments proposed by the House of Representatives, amended to read as followeth: 'a well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall net be infringed:'

It passed in the affirmative.
Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, 1789-1793
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1789.

Quote:
On motion to amend article the fifth, by inserting these words, 'for the common defence,' next to the words 'bear arms:'

It passed in the negative.

On motion to strike out of this article, line the second, these words, 'the best,' and insert in lieu thereof 'necessary to the:'

It passed in the affirmative.

On motion, on article the fifth, to strike out the word 'fifth,' after 'article the,' and insert 'fourth,' and to amend the article to read as follows: 'A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'

It passed in the affirmative.
Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, 1789-1793
APPENDIX. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION.

Quote:
Art. IV. 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.
Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, 1789-1793
FRIDAY, AUGUST 21, 1789

Quote:
agreed to by the House, as follows, two-thirds of the members present concurring, to wit:
5. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.
Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, 1789-1793
Congress of The United States:
Begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday, the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eigthy-nine.

Quote:
Article the Fourth. 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.

From these official documents recording the consideration of the US Senate and House of Representatives concerning the "Bill of Rights", it is evident that there is no significance placed on the presence or absence of the 'extra' two commas separating the first and second clauses into two parts each. The amendment means the same with one comma or three.

The term 'Milita' is taken to be synonymous with "The People" in the amendment, meaning the 'Militia' is composed of "The People", and the people have a right to keep and bear arms so they may preserve the security of a free state. The 'State' does not have the power to force anyone to bear arms in defense of the 'State', indicating this was conceived as an individual Right, NOT A DUTY of the individual, and not a power of the 'State'.

 

[Dr. Dickie]

You know, I thought about this and I came to this conclusion:
If they turn down the 2nd because of the "A well regulated militia..." part, then they do not understand this country or the Constitution anyway and they are simply making it up, so no amount of logic or understanding would make a difference.
The 2nd amendment does not GRANT the right, it merely acknowledges that the right exists and that the government cannot infringe on it. The Constitution restricts THE GOVERNMENT, NOT THE PEOPLE!
It states what the government CAN do. Only the limited and specific powers listed in the Constitution are given to the government. If they don't understand that, what the heck are they doing interpreting the thing for in the first place? The right to keep and bare arms exists independent of the 2nd amendment, we do not need it have the right.
The entire argument is framed by those that wish to change this country into a socialist utopia, and we have jumped on the defense and doing so have legitimized their framing of the question. We are killing ourselves by acknowledging their attack. I for one, am going to try to keep my focus on what is really happening here.