Just read your article on Ammoland about the commas in the 2nd. I’ve been researching this myself for many years and have many old books that have the 2nd, written, I believe, in its original form. It only had one comma. [More]
WarOnGuns Correspondent Patrick F documents a “Constitutional Conundrum” that never seemed to trouble anyone until recently. I included all of his observations and the four photographs he sent me. He suggests I use these for my further research on the matter, but in truth, he’s a better authority than I am on this. I was going to write this up for AmmoLand but decided I could not improve on what he has written and people should read it all.
I believe what he has assembled is important to confirming Founding intent and think it would be helpful to call it to the attention of the Supreme Court to bolster what the majority has already concluded. I don’t really know how to do that so maybe I’ll just send them a letter.
Interesting!
Counting commas while ignoring the clear intent of the authors is a symptom of something.
I’m not sure what to call it.
But if there was ever a justification for the two part historical test specified in Bruen that would be it.
“On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” –Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:449
https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Politics/ThomasJefferson/jeff1020.htm