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.

###

 

_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Reply via email to