Law school professor interprets the Second Amendment

[gabosaurus]

This is a very lengthy read, but a quite interesting one. A law school professor at UCLA tries to interpret the Second Amendment in a way that those who are not attorneys or scholars can understand it.
The wording is a lot more ambiguous than I thought, if you get down to the real semantics of it.

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm

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.

There is a qualifier in there that casts some doubt. If a well regulated militia becomes unnecessary to the security of a free state, does the right of the people to keep and bear arms remain?

Keep in mind that, at the time when the founders drafted this amendment, the American people had a deep distrust of organized law enforcement. State and local jurisdictions were policed primarily by citizen's groups. This was because most organized groups before the revolution were comprised of British loyalists.

Think it over.

[logroller]

This is a very lengthy read, but a quite interesting one. A law school professor at UCLA tries to interpret the Second Amendment in a way that those who are not attorneys or scholars can understand it.
The wording is a lot more ambiguous than I thought, if you get down to the real semantics of it.

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm

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.

There is a qualifier in there that casts some doubt. If a well regulated militia becomes unnecessary to the security of a free state, does the right of the people to keep and bear arms remain?

Keep in mind that, at the time when the founders drafted this amendment, the American people had a deep distrust of organized law enforcement. State and local jurisdictions were policed primarily by citizen's groups. This was because most organized groups before the revolution were comprised of British loyalists.

Think it over.

In perfectly plain English, the us supreme court said this us v heller

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

It's a prefatory clause whih gives purpose to the operative clause; not an if/ then qualifier. It doesn't limit or expand the operative clause-- it merely announces a purpose. A purpose which is part of our constitution. If you believe it is no longer a legitimate purpose, you'll need to amend it; not misinterpret it.
Why do people need personal autos; most are at rest more than actively transporting (which is their purpose) 'twould be far better to have transportation be a pubiically provided service as you deem security of a free state be provided. undoubtedly, it would save lives lost to auto accidents. Personal cars arent even protected by the constitution. Think it over.

[Marcus Aurelius]

This is a very lengthy read, but a quite interesting one. A law school professor at UCLA tries to interpret the Second Amendment in a way that those who are not attorneys or scholars can understand it.
The wording is a lot more ambiguous than I thought, if you get down to the real semantics of it.

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm

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.

There is a qualifier in there that casts some doubt. If a well regulated militia becomes unnecessary to the security of a free state, does the right of the people to keep and bear arms remain?

Keep in mind that, at the time when the founders drafted this amendment, the American people had a deep distrust of organized law enforcement. State and local jurisdictions were policed primarily by citizen's groups. This was because most organized groups before the revolution were comprised of British loyalists.

Think it over.

read the page my sig links to. The answer to the question in bold above, is yes.


From your link...

One way of testing one's interpretive approach -- of distinguishing honest interpretation from mere inscription of one's own policy preferences on the text -- is applying it to a wide array of texts of different political valences. It's easy enough to craft an interpretive trick that reaches the result one wants in the case for which it was crafted. But when one tests it against other provisions, one sees more clearly whether it's a sound interpretive method.

My modest discovery is that the Second Amendment belongs to a large family of similarly structured constitutional provisions: They command a certain thing while at the same time explaining their reasons. Because some of the provisions appeal to liberals and some to conservatives, they offer a natural test suite for any proposed interpretation of the Second Amendment. If the interpretive method makes sense with all the provisions, that's a point in its favor. But if it reaches the result that some may favor for the Second Amendment only by reaching patently unsound results for the other provisions, we should suspect that the method is flawed.

From mine...

[Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.'

"My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,
"(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and
"(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the people to keep and read Books' only to 'a well-educated electorate' — for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?"


[Copperud:] "(1) Your 'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.


"(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation."

If the 2nd amendment is interpreted to mean that only a militia can have the right to keep and bear arms, then in the example above, only a well educated electorate should be allowed to keep and read books.

Both your source and mine seem to indicate this is not a correct interpretation.

[hjmick]

Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.

















Those who can't teach, teach P.E.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.
Those who can't teach, teach P.E.

I had a great P.E. coach. Any kids that had a serious disagreement he stepped in and let them put on boxing gloves to settle the matter. He was ex military and a Korean War veteran that understood that fighting it out often settled it .
Amazing how quick the many smartass kids that mouth off crap stopped doing so. It even worked when the smartass kid refused to fight, the coach then made that kid promise to drop the subject he championed previously and announce to the entire class that he refused to defend it because it was wrong!!
Soon his was the most well behaved class in the entire school. Liberals could learn from that if the were not so absolutely stupid.. Wouldn't be a bad way to have our politicians decide issues giving that now they so often employ hook and crook and bribes!--Tyr

[gabosaurus]

In perfectly plain English, the us supreme court said this us v heller

It's a prefatory clause whih gives purpose to the operative clause; not an if/ then qualifier. It doesn't limit or expand the operative clause-- it merely announces a purpose. A purpose which is part of our constitution. If you believe it is no longer a legitimate purpose, you'll need to amend it; not misinterpret it.
Why do people need personal autos; most are at rest more than actively transporting (which is their purpose) 'twould be far better to have transportation be a pubiically provided service as you deem security of a free state be provided. undoubtedly, it would save lives lost to auto accidents. Personal cars arent even protected by the constitution. Think it over.

Logroller, thanks for your explanation. Not being a law student, I haven't seen the case you stated.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Logroller, thanks for your explanation. Not being a law student, I haven't seen the case you stated.

WHAT, NO THANKS FOR MARCUS'S BRILLIANT POST!!
You are very selective in awarding your thanks to those that shoot down your position. Not that log didn't do a good job because in fact he did..-Tyr

[Marcus Aurelius]

WHAT, NO THANKS FOR MARCUS'S BRILLIANT POST!!
You are very selective in awarding your thanks to those that shoot down your position. Not that log didn't do a good job because in fact he did..-Tyr

Not sure I really shot down her position, as she didn't 'really' take one in her post. All I did was point out that the source in her post, and my sig, agreed.

[logroller]

Logroller, thanks for your explanation. Not being a law student, I haven't seen the case you stated.

Not being a Supreme Court justice, I can't take credit for the case I presented. Nonetheless, you're welcome. Always glad to help a fellow citizen better understand the function of law.

[fj1200]

Not being a Supreme Court justice, I can't take credit for the case I presented. Nonetheless, you're welcome. Always glad to help a fellow citizen better understand the function of law.

And like hellooooooo, who hasn't seen Heller that has even a passing interest in the Second?

[logroller]

Not sure I really shot down her position, as she didn't 'really' take one in her post. All I did was point out that the source in her post, and my sig, agreed.

Your's was an excellent explanation of the legislative intent; especially the analogy; I just don't think it addressed her point as to a "qualifier". She was looking for a linguistic explanation.

[logroller]

And like hellooooooo, who hasn't seen Heller that has even a passing interest in the Second?

Someone who's interest is derogatory of said amendment?
ts a devastating ruling-- hear no evil, see no evil

[Marcus Aurelius]

Your's was an excellent explanation of the legislative intent; especially the analogy; I just don't think it addressed her point as to a "qualifier". She was looking for a linguistic explanation.

Wasn't mine, to be fair. I saw the link posted on the board, and immediately added it to my sig after reading it a few times. I thought the guys linguistic explanation for the whole 'qualifier' question was spot on.