The Second Amendment: 13 + 14 = 27

Contrary to gun lobby dogma, there are actually 27 words in the Second Amendment.

The Amendment reads, in full:

"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 the "Militia purpose" clause, with 13 words. Then there is the "keep and bear Arms" clause, with 14 words. Two clauses and 27 words. This is an uncomfortable fact to those accustomed to reading only half of the Amendment, reciting the last 14 words over and over again as if the first 13 didn't exist.

The Constitution says they do exist, and so we must read the whole Second Amendment. We must give effect to all of its words - not just the ones we like - to understand what the Amendment means.

In the case [pdf] now on appeal to the US Supreme Court, however, two judges on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals virtually "erased" the 13 words of the "Militia purpose" clause altogether, and made them practically meaningless. This is just one more reason why the Appeals Court decision was clearly erroneous and should be reversed.

You can read why in the second installment of the Brady Center Legal Action Project's thorough critique of the lower-court opinion titled, Decision By Eraser: How the Parker Court Obliterated Half of the Second Amendment.

What follows in an excerpt, with a link to the full text at the end:

In this second installment, we explain how the Parker panel ... botched its textual and historical analysis of the Second Amendment. At every turn of its decision, the Parker panel treated the first thirteen words of the Amendment - containing its militia purpose - as irrelevant surplus, with absolutely no binding effect. In its place, the court assumed that the Second Amendment protects ownership and use of firearms for "private purposes," even though this is found nowhere in its text or legislative history. We have entitled this piece Decision by Eraser because Parker treats the Constitution as if courts are empowered to selectively erase its words and replace them with unexpressed meanings that support the court's predilections.

Of course, as Chief Justice John Marshall established back in 1803 in the seminal case of Marbury v. Madison, the Parker panel's approach is contrary to how courts must interpret the language of our Constitution.

It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such a construction is inadmissible.

The Parker ruling defied that 200-year-old instruction....

The Parker court approached [the Second Amendment] text by "slicing and dicing it." Instead of looking at the Amendment as a whole to ascertain a meaning that accounts for all of its words in context, the court repeatedly divided the language into subparts and divined a meaning for each subpart taken in isolation. ... Only through this artificial methodology could the Parker court avoid the obvious meaning that ties each part of the Amendment together into a unified whole: that the people have the right to keep and bear arms as part of a well regulated militia.

Read the whole installment here [pdf].

(Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post.)

Comments

[kaveman]

Food for thought everyone.

If you can identify one thing in this world worth dying to defend, then you have also, by definition, at the same instant, identified something in this world worth killing to protect.

The founders of this nation risked everything to confront the British army, which at the time, was the most advanced military on earth.

We didn't beat them with superiour weapons, we beat them because we had more to lose if we failed. The Brits wanted our tax dollars and an expansion of territory. We wanted freedom from a bunch of inbred self-proclaimed kings with bad teeth.

They wanted money, we wanted liberty.

We would have won using sticks and stones if that is what it would have taken. Firearms in the hands of the people simply lessened the death toll before Britain surrendured.

If a fox is chasing a rabbit, who will survive?
The rabbit, of course. The fox is fighting for his dinner. The rabbit is fighting for his life.

[kaveman]

I sure hate to give Misanthrope(hater of mankind) heartburn, but you may want to read this...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/10/washington/10gun.html?ei=5124&en=7dd8851de712becd&ex=1331182800&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink&pagewanted=all

[Thirdpower]

More "individual right" support.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_second_amendment_and_the_i.html

[kaveman]

I read that Misanthrope(dictionary defenition...hater of mankind) said we can't take on the government's Blackwater mercs without rocket launchers.

Well... I own three grenade launchers, does that count for something?

[kaveman]

I think this dictionary defenition should enlighten us all about the true nature of our lawyer friend...

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/misanthrope

[DMeadows]

"Lies, contradictions, misinformation... when does it stop?"
--molonlabe

Not while there's money in it for the gun-control lobby and their special interests.

While the numbers of gun-control advocates are on the decline, there is still some amount of money to be made in the gun-control game. Dues and contributions from actual true-believers and funding from companies which stand to profit from providing services or products due to gun-control schemes are the major sources.

Paul Helmke, the Brady Campaign, and the gun-control lobby in general aren't going to stop until the cash cow runs dry. And if all it takes are lies, contradictions, and misinformation to keep the cash cow producing to maintain the sleek, well-fed lifestyle to which they are accustomed, then you bet they're not going to stop. It is unfortunate that the gun-control true-believers throw money into the gun-control lobbyists purses, because not a dime of it does anything to reduce violence, but I'm at least thankful that the gun-control lobby is mostly harmless.

[molonlabe]

How can you have an "open mind" about solutions to violence when you host a conference (funded by the Joyce Foundation BTW) and don't invite anyone from the pro-rights side?

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/341394_guns28.html

[molonlabe]

OT, but funny:

I demand that the BC join me in the fight to ban "Assault Strollers." You could imagine my surprise when, while shopping for a baby stroller, I happened to come across this one with pistol grips. Don't they realize that this can lead to "accurized spray strolling?"

http://store.trackerdesigns.com/Merchant2/graphics/00000005/1735Stroller(1).jpg

[Thirdpower]

Here's the video of Dennis erasing "of the People":

http://youtube.com/watch?v=L5QvYliZCq8

[molonlabe]

Question:

In typical hypocritical fashion, why does the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Ownership fight so vehemently for businesses to have the right to decide what is in the best of safety within their place of business/building (restricting weapons on employer grounds), yet fight just as vehemently to restrict the right of a home owner to exercise the same right?

Lies, contradictions, misinformation... when does it stop?

[molonlabe]

Interesting reading...well, maybe not in the eyes of our lawyer friend....

http://www.constitution.org/leglrkba.htm

[DMeadows]

If the Brady Campaign spent their time and energy, and their contributors' money, fighting the root causes of violence instead of attempting to advance their propaganda about the Second Amendment, they might actually make some progress on preventing violence. When will they be honest and change their name to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Ownership?

Never, of course. That would drastically reduce contributions. "Gun violence" is a much more effective phrase to use in eliciting fear, and money, from anti-gun folks.

[Thirdpower]

Since Paul is concerned about the court erasing words, perhaps we should quote their very own Peter Henigan:

"The Second Amendment is the only provision in our Bill of Rights that actually states its own purpose. It says a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. "

Look what word he chose to erase. Telling isn't it. Oddly enough, that part is no longer available on the Brady Campaign webite:

http://www.bradycampaign.org/bradyreport/2007/may/front/

[arsbadmojo]

Just saw Sneaky's post:
-----------------------------------------------
"17th. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

- The Debates in the Convention
of the Commonwealth of Virginia
on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution (In Convention, Richmond, Friday, June 27, 1788)
-----------------------------------------------

Upon reading this, two words immediately sprang to mind...

Check.
Mate.

Not that it was even needed; the wording as it stands doesn't seem particularly ambiguous to me - but this evolutionary precursor clearly erases any doubt about the matter.

Paul Helmke's convoluted 'interpretation' is fantasy at best or disingenuous at worst.

[Thirdpower]

In contrast, Paul has stated:

"If the justices read all 27 words of the Second Amendment and give them meaning; if they respect the right of the people to enact their own strong gun laws, as we have throughout American history; and if the justices reject judicial activism and refrain from substituting their own policy preferences for the people"s elected representatives, then the District of Columbia will prevail. And so will the American people."

Yet he opposes local laws enacting CCW, Castle Doctrine, etc.

He's right about one thing. The will of the people is prevailing. That's why 48 states have CCW in one form or another and this case is being seen by the SCOTUS.