GRAMMATICAL
First off, I would like to acknowledge the help I received in understanding this sentence.  Though the persons wish to remain anonymous, I thank the 12 professors of English and Grammar who assisted me.  They represent schools such as BYU, UCLA, USC, Stanford, Bucknell, UCB, and even Oxford (UK).  This page has been criticized for using "third grade English to understand a college level sentence.  While I admit, this page starts with the basics, it most certainly relies on college level concepts.  The person making this comment has been invited by the professor at UCLA to take one of his English courses free of charge, because according to the professor, "that guy really needs it".
In any sentence, we can divide the words into the subject and a predicate. A simple sentence contains a noun as the subject and a verb as the predicate. Spot barks. The predicate can be more complicated, containing objects and other modifiers of the object or the verb. Spot barks loudly. Spot barks loudly at Jane. The subject can also be more complicated. My dog Spot barks loudly at Jane. This is still a simple sentence in its basic structure. It is far removed from the sentence that is the Second Amendment.
The Second Amendment contains a subject and a predicate, just like the simple sentence above. The trick is to figure out what they are and what the rest of the sentence is. A subject must be a noun or pronoun. In the Second Amendment there are no pronouns, but the words "Militia", "security", "State", "right", "people", and "Arms" are all nouns. The predicate must contain a finite or action verb. In the Second Amendment we have verbs and verbals. Verbals are verbs, but they are not finite action verbs, they are variants like infinitives, gerunds, and participles, sometimes referred to as "non-finite" verbs. They are usually formed by the addition of -ed or -ing suffixes, or the addition of to before the verb. "Keep", "bear", and "shall" are verbs, but "keep and bear" is preceded by "to". This makes "to keep and bear" a non-finite verb or a verbal, actually two of them as it should be read to say "to keep" and "to bear". So the finite verb is "shall", but what "shall"? "Security...shall not be infringed" might work, but as we will see, "security" cannot be the subject because it is part of another construct. "State" suffers a similar problem. Besides, how does one infringe a state? "People" might work, but how does one infringe people. It is also part of a prepositional phrase. "Militia" might also work and infringing a militia is a little more feasible than a state or people, but it is still awkward. As we will see, it too is part of another construct. "Right" works perfectly. "Arms" almost works and we will see why in a minute.
A common misconception is that the Second Amendment is a compound sentence. A compound sentence is one that contains more than one independent clause, each literally a simple sentence by itself. Since each independent clause would need a finite verb and there is only one in the Second Amendment, there can be only one independent clause in the Second Amendment. The next misconception is that the remainder of the sentence is a dependent or subordinate clause. Clauses usually need a noun and a finite verb, arranged in subject/predicate. A subordinate clause is a sub-thought to the main or independent clause. It has the same subject/predicate arrangement, but it has a subordinating word like "when", as in "You can go outside when your homework is done." A dependent clause relies on the main clause to complete it, though some disagree if it is a subordinate clause or not. Neither can stand on their own as a complete sentence like an independent clause can. Because there is not another finite verb in the Second Amendment, there is only one clause. The remainder of the sentence is a phrase. Phrases are sometimes confused with subordinate clauses and they are very similar in many respects. A major difference is the absence of a finite verb.
The Second Amendment begins with what is known as an "absolute phrase". This construct is not widely understood and found more frequently in speech than in writing. Most people are more familiar with participial phrases. These begin with a participle and modify a subject or object. Being wary, Spot barked at the stranger. "Being" is a participle in both this example and in the Second Amendment. "Being wary" is the participial phrase in the example.
An absolute phrase is basically a participial phrase that has its own subject instead of referring to a subject or object in the main clause. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State... "Being" in this case modifies "Militia" instead of a part of the main clause. "Being necessary to the security of a free State" is the participial phrase and it acts as an adjective, describing "Militia". The entire first thirteen words are an absolute phrase. An absolute phrase is grammatically outside the main clause of the sentence and provides background information. It is said to modify the entire main clause, not a specific word. It is sometimes confused with a subordinate clause because it contains its own subject, but instead of a predicate with a finite verb, it has a participial phrase.
This also eliminates "Militia" from being the subject of the sentence, since an absolute phrase cannot be the subject of a sentence.
The main clause then is "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". It can stand on its own as a complete sentence. Over simplifying the sentence, we can reduce it to "The right shall not be infringed". In reality, the subject is a complex one (as opposed to a compound one, which means there is more than one subject) and should not be reduced. "To keep and bear Arms" acts in apposition to "the right", renaming it. This is why "Arms" will almost work as the subject of the sentence.
Some people object to the comma placed between the subject and predicate. They claim this means that these fourteen words cannot be the subject and predicate of the sentence. One must remember that the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written by hand, long before word processors or correctable typewriters. A minor punctuation mistake might go unnoticed or if noticed, may be deemed so inconsequential as to not warrant re-scribing the entire document. Also, many standards of grammar were different than they are today. The use of capitals is evidence of that. What is more, we can find a similar sentence in the Constitution itself, the first sentence of Article VII; "The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this constitution between the states so ratifying the same." Here we again have a complex subject separated from the predicate by a comma.
Those familiar with language or who have access to English primers will also point out that there should not be a comma in the absolute phrase. They are correct, by today's standards. Henry Watson Fowler, one of the most influential people on grammar and has been said to be to grammar what Webster is to dictionaries or Roget is to thesauruses, warns against placing a comma between the noun and participle in an absolute phrase. Prior to Fowler, however, it was an accepted practice.
Much ado has been raised over the meaning of "well regulated". It could mean various things from governed by regulations, prepared, trained, properly functioning, adjusted, controlled, or having a charter. The focus on these words blinds people to the more important features of the sentence. This is because the first thirteen words, the absolute phrase show a cause for the main clause, but place no limitations upon it.
The Sun, having set, the people of the little mid-western town, went home.
The people of the town can go home anytime they want to, this action is not conditional upon the setting of the Sun. The setting of the Sun is a background event, one that has caused the people to go home. There is also nothing saying that the people do not sometimes stay out after sunset.
The King, having finished his speech, their majesties retired for the evening.
Again, their majesties likely retire every evening, regardless of whether there was a speech or not. Nothing says the King must make a speech before they can retire and nothing says they do not sometimes linger after a speech. Such is the function of an absolute phrase.
In the Second Amendment, the absolute phrase places no restrictions upon the right to arms. It does not say that the people can only bear arms when a well regulated militia is necessary. Indeed, the keeping and bearing of arms is in no way dependent upon the militia or its necessity, it is the other way around, the militia is dependent upon the people keeping and bearing arms.
Some will argue that the absolute phrase does place conditions on the right to arms. They will contend that a similar construction like, "The paint, being wet, the people were forbidden to touch the door" supports their statement by placing a condition necessary for the people to be forbidden to touch the door. If we look at this, it misses an important aspect of the Second Amendment. In the Second Amendment, the right to arms is contained completely in the subject of the sentence. The absolute phrase does not cause that right to exist, it already does. The absolute phrase simply shows a cause for the right to not be infringed, but as we can see, it is not all encompassing. Just as there may be many reasons why people might be forbidden to touch the door, the people to go home, or their majesties to retire, there are many reasons why the right to arms is protected. The authors of the Second Amendment simply give us their greatest concern, that Americans have the means to protect themselves not only from invaders, but against criminals, insurrectionists, and even their own government if need be. To construct a sentence identical to the Second Amendment, there must be a complex subject and there must be no appositive relationship between any part of the absolute phrase and the main clause.
Some say this makes the protection and right absolute, without limits. This is not true. Where in the First Amendment are the rights of free press, speech, and religion limited? They are not limited by that document. Yet we know they have limits. Likewise, just because the absolute phrase does not place limits on the right or protection of the right, it does not go to the other extreme and mean the right or protection is limitless.
Still, some people will read the Second and come up with "A well regulated militia shall not be infringed" as the main clause. The problem with this is what are the remaining words? We know that "being necessary to the security of a free State" would be a participial phrase, but what of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms"? There is no construction that would aptly describe this phrase. It is just there, a rock with no function. In English, we cannot have a phrase with no function; therefore, this is not a valid analysis.
So what we have in the Second Amendment is a complex sentence containing an absolute phrase and a main clause. The main clause contains a complex subject.
Let's take a look then at some other important features of the Second. It starts with "A", an article which does not indicate a specific group or number. One could use the word "any" in its place, "Any well regulated Militia".  Most gun control and state/collective right advocates read it as "The well regulated Militia", which is incorrect.
As I said before, far too much importance is placed on "well regulated Militia", but it is still important and must be understood, lest others claim we ignored it. It is important because it tells us exactly why it is so paramount that this right not be infringed. "Well regulated" or just "regulated" can have several meanings. It could mean governed by regulations, controlled, adjusted, properly functioning, trained, prepared, or having a charter.
For those claiming that "well regulated" means governed by regulation as the Militia of Art 1 Sec 8 of the Constitution, if we look at that section, we see that the authors plainly indicate what can be "regulated" by the government. They can regulate the value of money (clause 5) and have the power for "Governing and Regulating land and naval forces" (clause 14). They do not use regulate in the Militia clauses (15 and 16), instead using the word "governing", which as we can see in clause 14 obviously does not mean the same thing as "regulate". Based on readings of the Federalist papers, specifically number 29, "well regulated" would mean proficient: basically properly functioning and trained.
"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss." (Emphasis added) - Federalist Paper Number 29
What we see above is Alexander Hamilton using the term "well regulated" in such a way to imply a "tolerable expertness" and "degree of perfection", not as in governed or ruled by regulation as some people contend the Second Amendment should read. And then, some will point to the passage quoted above as prove that a select militia was being advocated. This really has nothing to do with the subject at hand, which is what the purpose of the Militia is in the Second Amendment.
What then is a "Militia"? It is a group of people who come together to fight as an army, yet are not professional soldiers. The exact definition of a militia or the one(s) being referred to is a legal question.
So we have established that "Any properly functioning Militia" is what is necessary. The participial phrase "being necessary to the security of a free State" is pretty self-explanatory and not nearly as controversial.
What then of the main clause? Three major questions arise. 1) What or who are "the people"? 2) What are Arms? 3) Is the prohibition on infringement absolute?
The term "people" has often been said to be a collective term, referring to a group of individuals. To some minds, this means that the right to arms is a collective right, not an individual one. A flaw with this is that in the Fourth Amendment, we see the term "people" used to indicate an individual.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated
If the use of the term "people" were to indicate a collective right, then persons living alone would have no right to be secure in their persons or belongings. Clearly this is not correct.
"People" is used to point to a group of individuals who belong to a community or society. In this case, "people" is a term used to indicate that individuals who are a member of our society (citizens, those with the intent to become citizens, or those who have been members of the community) have this right. Even this is subject to some legal defining. So it is an individual right, not a collective one, but you have to belong to the society or community to have it (or in the case of the Second, to have it protected). The Supreme Court of the US has even addressed this issue and concluded the same thing (see Verdugo-Urquidez).
"Arms" is a term that has also caused some controversy. Does arms include bombs, nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, rockets, etc.? They are arms, after all. The answer is no. Arms, as used by the authors of the Second, indicate what we would call small arms today. These are weapons which are individually transported, served (set up and loaded), and operated. It excludes any weapons that cannot be controlled to a fine degree, in order to target a specific person or thing without collateral damage. They are only designed to kill one person per activation (yes, some nit-pickers will point out that a bullet can kill and pass through one person and kill another, but that is not their design). Further support for this can be found in what types of arms the militiamen were expected to supply for themselves according the Militia Act of 1792. These arms were muskets/firelocks/rifles, pistols, sabers, swords, and espontoons (a pike like device). They were not required to supply themselves with artillery pieces like cannon or mortars. In today's world, machine-guns would be right on the dividing line for what "arms" included.
How absolute is the phrase "shall not be infringed"? Let's simply recognize that no rights are absolute. Not freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and most certainly not the right to arms. The exact details of how non-absolute the protection of the right is, is a legal question.
Main / Historical / Legal / Court cases / Analysis
Hosted by www.Geocities.ws

1