comma usage in 2A... I'm confused

[v35]

I have two wonderful little booklets containing copies of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. I love to refer to them when dispelling commonly held misconceptions.

As I've been following the Heller case, I thought to review the actual wording of the Amendment. I was surprised to find my two books differ in the use of commas. Specifically, the one published by the State of NJ prints only one comma - after the word "state". The one published by the Cato Institute has three commas, after "Militia", "State", and "Arms" (they are all capitalized that way too).

Of course the internet is so ubiquitous now that it's unnecessary to carry around such references. I turned to the definitive authority - Google. Unfortunately I am now even more confused, having found several different internet versions each one emphatically stating its own claim to the one true and only correct version.

Lest you think discussing comma placement is trivial, at least one of these self-appointed internet authorities takes the position that the founders' overuse of commas contribute to erroneously interpreting 2A to encompass handguns and semiautomatic weapons, calling this grievous oversight "a clear mistake". I am well familiar with this argument. Seems the Founders were prescient enough to envision the need for protected speech in the internet age, but they meant to address only flintlocks in the 2A since that was the high tech weapon of its day. Good thing that guy's not on the Supreme Court.

I searched THR for a discussion of this but can't find a relevant one, so I apologize if I'm rehashing an old topic.

So my question is: which is the correct version? How do you know? Are those commas really there or were they just ink blots left by sloppy fountain pens? Which version was ratified and is the law that the Supreme Court has been asked to interpret?

 

[Librarian]

The commas probably do not matter much.

See http://www.guncite.com/second_amendment_commas.html

Here is what three authoritative sources say about punctuation and comma usage during the 18th century:

"The punctuation that emerged in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries was consistent in just two respects: it was prolific and often chaotic."
--- Alphabet to email: How written english evolved and where it's heading. Naomi S. Baron, Routledge, London and New York 2000. P. 185

"Excessive punctuation was common in the 18th century: at its worst it used commas with every subordinate clause and separable phrase."
--- 15 ed. V.29, The New Encyclopaedia Britannica 1997. P. 1051

"In the 18-19c, people tended to punctuate heavily, especially in their use of commas."
--- The Oxford Companion to the English Language. Oxford New York, Oxford University Press 1992. Tom McCarthur ed. P. 824

In the 19th Century the rule, borrowed from English law, was that "[p]unctuation is no part of the statute" (Hammock v. Farmers Loan & Trust Co, 105 U.S. 77 [1881]) (citing references from the late 18th and early 19th century).

 

[Coronach]

Yeah, the punctuation was as variable as the spelling and the presence or absence of surplus "e"s.

Mike

 

[Euclidean]

People who resort to the tired old argument of "militia means this" or "the comma indicates that" are really trying to cover up the fact they can't address the substance of the issue, that the 2A refers to an individual right to keep and bear arms. This is absolutely clear from reading some of the things said at the time, such as in the Federalist papers.

The meaning is also abundantly clear when you combine Librarian's post with the fact that similar statutes in contemporary state constitutions also had "justification clauses", offset by a comma or commas.

New Hampshire Constitution circa 1784:

The Liberty of the Press is essential to the security of freedom in a state; it ought, therefore, to be inviolably preserved.

Massachusetts Constitution circa 1780:

The liberty of the press is essential to the security of freedom in a state it ought not, therefore, to be restricted in this commonwealth.

I've humbly proposed that were it to be written today, the 2A would say something like this:

"A well equipped and maintained military is necessary to preserve the freedoms of a country, therefore the right of individuals to keep and bear arms should not be restricted."

The justification clause in the 2A was put in because the founders observed first hand what happened when large standing armies were in place and had a monopoly of force.

 

[Mannix]

Archives.gov has a high res scan of the original BoR.

The original copy of the BoR reads:

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.

I, however, find nit picking over the placement of commas to be rather pointless. Reading the writings of those involved in the drafting and who signed the constitution and BoR provides ample evidence that they believed an armed citizenry to be essential to keep a government in check. A quick check of the constitutions of the various states at the time also backs up an individual's right to keep and bear arms for those who insist on a legal basis for god given rights. I as a human being have a right to defend myself and to own the means with which to do so. Just because someone in a gown with a gavel says I don't have a right, doesn't make it so. Rights exist without legal basis, as such a state cannot take away a right, it can only suppress and punish those who exercise it.

 

[HungSquirrel]

I only see two extra commas.

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.

With the commas removed, and the language updated to reflect how we speak today:

Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

[Robert Hairless]

Shouldn't it read "The National Guard, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" or does it really matter that the National Guard did not exist until 1903?

 

[hugh damright]

I tend to go with the version in the national archives but a lot of folks insist that it is incorrect. At any rate, I don't believe that something like a comma can change the principle of free government being declared. I don't think the answers are to be found in the rules of grammar, and quite the contrary, I think such an approach can even be misleading.

I see the Second Amendment as being in a condensed form, and I believe that a reconstituted version would say something like:

Military rule is a threat to popular government; a standing army in times of peace is a danger to a people's liberty; the proper defense of a free State is militia composed of, and inseparable from, the people; the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; in all cases, any military power must be subordinate to the civil power.

 

[Standing Wolf]

The commas probably do not matter much.

Thanks, Librarian!

English language spelling, usage, and punctuation have always been a free-for-all. I take that as an indication of a deep, abiding cultural tendency toward egalitarianism. It's our language. We don't even bother to rebel against would-be authorities, but simply ignore them.

Small wonder, I say, English has become the world's language.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Yeah, the punctuation was as variable as the spelling and the presence or absence of surplus "e"s.

I don't mind the commas so much as the usage of the letter "f" in lieu of the letter "s"... or as they would say:

I don't mind the commaf fo much, af the ufage, of the letter "f", in lieu of, the letter "f"...

 

[BigG]

Use of f in place of s

I think the f you are quoting is in the case of the second s in a double s situation. I beleive it may revert to the ess set ß that the Germans still use in their double s situations. Like Bier vom Faß we would write Bier vom Fass, or translate Keg Beer.

Americans would write Progresf - anyway I can see a similarity.

 

[legaleagle_45]

I think the f you are quoting is in the case of the second s in a double s situation.

It is more than merely the double s scenario. I think they are trying to mess with my mind. Archaic version of Blackstone's Commentaries:

THE general expectation of fo numerous and refpectable an audience, the novelty, and ( I may add ) the importance of the duty required from this chair, muft unavoidably be productive of great diffidence and apprehenfions in him who has the honour to be placed in it. He muft be fenfible how much will depend upon his conduct in the infancy of a ftudy, which is now firft adopted by public academical authority;

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/blackstone/introa.htm#1

 

[dogrunner]

The use of various characters in the alphabet has changed over time. As an example the letters "V" and "U" were used inversely.

Regardless of punctuation or spelling, the proof of the pudding lies in the written intent of the various amendments, as stated in the writings of the drafters.

 

[One of Many]

If you look at the progression of the amendments through time, as they were debated in different locations and groups of people, you will find that the wording changed and the punctuation changed; however the meaning (intent) did not change, and that is for individuals to be protected from governmental infringement of a pre-existing right.

 

[baz]

"A well equipped and maintained military is necessary to preserve the freedoms of a country, therefore the right of individuals to keep and bear arms should not be restricted."

The justification clause in the 2A was put in because the founders observed first hand what happened when large standing armies were in place and had a monopoly of force.

That's my emphasis on the word "military." I don't think that would work. "Military" is not an adequate modern synonym for what was meant by "militia" in the 18th century. I know you understand what "militia" meant by the reference to "standing army." If we were going to truly update so there could be no mistake what we're trying to say here, I might suggest:

A well armed citizenry is necessary to preserve the freedoms of a country; therefore the right of individuals to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

[v35]

It seems from my Googling of various sites that the antis are quick to seize upon some hidden meaning in the extra commas. This gives rise (in their minds) to the concept that arms were meant to be exclusively borne by entities such as the National Guard, which as another post indicated didn't exist in its present form until many years later.

It only takes a little more research to conclude that this interpretation makes no sense. The Founders were generally opposed to standing armies since their existence at that time manifested itself in the occupation of the States with armies loyal to the King, whose purpose seemed largely to oppress their own people. So it would seem the purpose of arming the citizenry was intended to sufficiently counter that possibility. In that light, the wording of the 2A seems less ambiguous, and any argument regarding comma placement becomes specious.

One of the websites I came across considered the following analogy, which settles the issue for me:

A well educated Electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.

This wording is nearly identical to the 2A yet I can't think of any way that could be misinterpreted by anyone, commas or not.

 

[JimmyG]

The 2nd's language...

With regard to the 50 individual states' constitutions, pardon me for not linking to them, for packing dot org is down at the moment. Anyway, among the 50, there are three or four which, in the 'money shot', don't use the word(s) shall not be infringed, but rather, dig it...shall not be QUESTIONED.

Hmmmmm, interesting to say the least, in that it follows so closely in the wake of the First amendment.

I could go for some of that..."Shall not be questioned" suggests to me "**** with regard to hindering my RKBA...forevermore."

Peace out.

 

[scout26]

IIRC, there are several "original" Constitutions still in existence, and since "copiers" in the those days consisted of either 1) some guy sitting down and writing it out on a fresh sheet of parchment or paper, or 2) setting it up on a hand-operated printing press, exact duplicates were the expection rather then the norm.

Again IIRC, the Constitutions were copied out by hand and therefore there are some variation as to the number of commas in the 2A in each "original".

Then again I may be in error.........

 

[Ieyasu]

If we were going to truly update so there could be no mistake what we're trying to say here, I might suggest:

Quote:
A well armed citizenry is necessary to preserve the freedoms of a country; therefore the right of individuals to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

And you'd be wrong. The Founders knew the difference between a well-regulated militia and merely a well-armed citizenry.

 

[scout26]

I imagine that the Founding Fathers now wish that they had just written:

Amendment the Second: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

And then somewhere else "The states shall train, regulate and maintain a militia." or words to that effect. Maybe a real wordsmith can do better.

 

[.cheese.]

Yeah, the punctuation was as variable as the spelling and the presence or absence of surplus "e"s.

Man oh man, I wish I lived back then. Write things however you wanted.... spell it however you think it should be spelled. The ultimate freedom!

Some people would point out that spelling and grammar inconsistencies back in those days point to how education wasn't standardized and was poor back then.

A part of me longs for it though. "You spell it tomato, I spell it toemaytoe."

Although the whole part about no technology... candles for light at night.... no medical care (you're sick.. you're dead).... no cars! (no Infiniti G35 ), etc.... that would all get to me.

As for the 2A interpretation, I simply disagree with "The Language Guy" on this issue. The guy has excellent credentials and I'm sure he's very intelligent. I just respectfully disagree with the assumptions that he makes in arriving at his interpretation.

 

[Robert Hairless]

Man oh man, I wish I lived back then. Write things however you wanted.... spell it however you think it should be spelled. The ultimate freedom!

.cheese, ur wysh has been granted by da gods of d errornnt hear peepul writ thins s thay wand, spel as dey lyke n een stard wid a period insted of a d nd

 

[Tim Burke]

I think scout26 has the right idea. The 2nd Amendment says that the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It implies that:

• the states are free,
• the states are responsible for their own security,
• the states can raise militias to accomplish said security, &
• the people shall comprise the militia.

 

[BigG]

Coronach said:

Yeah, the punctuation was as variable as the spelling and the presence or absence of surplus "e"s.

Standing Wolf said:

English language spelling, usage, and punctuation have always been a free-for-all. I take that as an indication of a deep, abiding cultural tendency toward egalitarianism. It's our language. We don't even bother to rebel against would-be authorities, but simply ignore them.

With all due respect, I find these statements ignorant, a trifle arrogant, and plain wrong. It is totally misrepresenting the educational level of the well-educated of the 18th century that they had no knowledge of grammar, sentence construction, or spelling. The well educated person in Thomas Jefferson's day would know English, French, and Latin; maybe Greek also, in addition to rithmetic, music, natural science, and a bunch of other subjects. The average college graduate today could not write at the level, either in terms of intellectual content or polish, of any of the founding fathers and it is ridiculous to imply that we are superior in education. Technology, yes; education, no. It is a common tactic of the lesser endowed to denigrate the greater as a sop to their ego. These guys were usually the lawyers and civic leaders of their community and the 2nd amendment was written to counter and deflect challenges perceived at the time that we have no way of knowing. The reason people misinterpret the 2nd amendment is willful. They do not want to acknowledge the plain truth.

 

[SMMAssociates]

Couple things to add....

IMHO, the folks involved were from an era where writing and speaking in terms we'd now call "flowery", or just long winded, was the way you did things to make it sound good, as much as anything else. There also may be a good effort to be precise, too. (One argument for Latin in legal and medical writing is for such precision. I'm not sure I agree, but my Latin is pretty bad....)

The words "well regulated" seem to get caught in some craws once in a while. This did NOT mean "covered with laws". It's just a flowery way of saying "so it works". At the time, a clock was about as complex a device you'd likely see, and a clock that was "well regulated" did a good job of keeping the time....

(If you're old enough, you'll remember the little red "Radio Flyer" wagons. "Radio" was a hint at how fast the thing would go, but it also was related to the phenomenon. We saw the same things with "CB" and "PC" later on.... Same thing with the railroads years before.... "Well regulated" could almost be slang!)

It's pretty clear to me that the "well regulated" clause is just a parenthetical.... No harm would be done if that was removed. But our Founding Fathers liked things to sound nice .

Regards,