Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 0
You see, grammatically that first part is a subordinate clause. And it's explaining, not qualifying, the remainder. If anything, it's there to protect the existence of local militias - as a supplement to the portion that protects the individual right.

I do not agree this is subordinate. Neither does Scalia. He (the court) does sees the first part a statement of purpose.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

"The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose."
….
"Logic demands that there be a link between the stated purpose and the command. …. That requirement of logical connection may cause a prefatory clause to resolve an ambiguity in the operative clause ...Therefore, while we will begin our textual analysis with the operative clause, we will return to the prefatory clause to ensure that our reading of the operative clause is consistent with the announced purpose."

Where he and you agree is that the "the right of the people" "unambiguously refer(s) to individual rights, not “collective” rights".

And while you want a hard and expansive consideration of 'shall not be infringed', the court through Scalia's opinion does not see that as absolute as you might like.

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. ..... Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
….
"We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. …. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” "

He spends many paragraphs in the opinion on the "Relationship between Prefatory Clause and Operative Clause" You should read them. You will agree with much, but not all.
Print the post  

Announcements

HURL Rules
Relax, laugh and Enjoy Foolishly
What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.