linguistics of the second amendment

[Dennis Baron]

On March 18 the US Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Heller  
v. District of Columbia, a gun-control case which turns in part on  
competing linguistic analyses of the second amendment to the US  
Constitution, the "right to bear arms" amendment.  A transcript of  
the oral arguments should be posted on the SCOTUS web site later that  
day.  A decision from the Court is expected later in the Spring term.

Readers of this list may find the materials below useful for their  
own work and for class discussion.  At the very least they illustrate  
both a contemporary example of the intersection of linguistics and  
public policy, and an instance where historical evidence can  
illuminate the meaning of current constitutional issues.

The Second Amendment 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."

Here is part of the description of the case presented by the Cornell  
Univ. Law School Legal Information Institute:

The District of Columbia bans possession of handguns, and it bans  
anyone from carrying a handgun or other deadly or dangerous weapon  
without a license within its borders. It also requires that any  
firearms which may be kept within the District, such as rifles, be  
kept either disassembled or with a trigger lock. These are some of  
the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. Joseph Heller claims  
these laws violate his Second Amendment right to "keep and bear  
Arms." The Supreme Court has not taken a Second Amendment case since  
1939, and has never decided whether the Second Amendment confers a  
right to bear arms upon individuals or only upon the militias it  
refers to in its opening clause. In the intervening 69 years, the  
federal and state governments have passed many laws regulating and  
restricting the ownership and use of guns. Should the Supreme Court  
uphold the D.C. Circuit's invalidation of the Gun Ban, it could have  
a substantial impact on these gun laws and will almost certainly lead  
to more litigation as gun rights advocates challenge those laws as  
violating the Second Amendment. If the Court finds that the Gun Ban  
is constitutional, it will strengthen the ability of government to  
regulate gun ownership, and may result in more restrictive gun laws  
across the country.

The rest of the Cornell LII description is at http:// 
www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/07-290.html

If you scroll down on that page you will see links to the many amicus  
briefs filed in support of both sides in this question.

While both DC's brief and that of Heller discuss linguistic arguments  
a bit, two of the amicus briefs deploy linguistic arguments at  
greater length.

The Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the DC gun control law  
unconstitutional in part because it felt that the first clause in the  
second amendment was grammatically independent from the second  
clause, and as a result it had no bearing on the amendment's main  
clause: that court found the first clause prefatory rather than  
operative.

In an amicus brief filed on behalf of the petitioner (District of  
Columbia), I and two other linguists offer a linguistic argument in  
the case.  Our argument, which draws on 18th c. and 20th c. grammars  
and dictionaries, discusses the syntax of the amendment (in  
particular, its absolute construction), and the meanings of the terms  
"well-regulated militia" and "bear arms."  You may read our brief  
here:    http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/ 
07-08/07-290_PetitionerAmCu3LinguisticsEnglishProfsnew.pdf

In an amicus brief filed on behalf of the respondent (Heller), law  
prof. Nelson Lund, who is not a linguist but who relies in part on  
linguistic argument, takes issue with our analysis, maintaining that  
the second amendment's absolute construction is grammatically  
independent and has no bearing on the "operative" second clause.   
Lund further disputes our interpretations of "well-regulated militia"  
and "bear arms."  You may read Lund's brief here:  http:// 
www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/ 
07-08/07-290_RespondentAmCu2ndAmendFound.pdf

This case is likely to draw attention from the press, and those of  
you who are teaching language policy or language history classes this  
semester may want to draw your students' attention to the linguistic  
aspects of the case.  Those of you teaching such courses next  
semester will have the benefit of adding the Court's opinion (and any  
dissents) to the list of primary sources.

Best,

Dennis

Dennis Baron
Professor of English and Linguistics
Department of English
University of Illinois
608 S. Wright St.
Urbana, IL 61801

office: 217-244-0568
fax: 217-333-4321

www.uiuc.edu/goto/debaron

read the Web of Language:
www.uiuc.edu/goto/weboflanguage




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lgpolicy-list/attachments/20080303/dad761a5/attachment.htm>