| "A well balanced breakfast being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed." Do the people get to keep and eat food, or does a breakfast get to keep and eat food? It's a matter of English grammar. Again: "Well stocked libraries being necessary to the development of a sound mind, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed." Is it only people in libraries that can keep and read books? If you want a sentence diagram of it: https://imgur.com/vTB11TE Several state constitutions have parts with similar structure. It wasn't uncommon. The meaning of law should not change when common language usage changes. At the time of writing, "well regulated" meant effective/functional/working, and militia meant every male from about age 12 to 60. Trying to reinterpret the 2nd amendment away is an attempt to bypass the proper process for making constitutional changes. There is one legitimate way to restrict guns; simply amend the constitution. |
I agree completely that we should not language shiv out legal problems away lest we destroy ourselves in favorable ambiguity. My question was clearly poorly articulated (smells of irony).
The first clause established a clear goal and intent, while the second is the statement of action.
The more interesting legal question to me (my legalese is super weak, so please excuse), why is any law that would not hamper a militia be considered unconstitutional? Other than Heller seems to have set the definition militia to something frankly disturbing.