Words of Freedom

The plain language of the Second Amendment does not restrict the people's right to keep and bear arms.

... Sheldon Richman, editor of Ideas on Liberty, parses as follows:

"Approaching the sentence as grammarians, we immediately note two things: the simple subject is 'right' and the full predicate is 'shall not be infringed.' This, in other words, is a sentence about a right that is already assumed to exist. It does not say, "The people shall have a right to keep and bear arms.'"

"That has important implications for the opening militia phrase, which confuses so many people. Gun opponents often argue that if the opening phrase does not apply -- if, say, the standing army takes the place of the militia -- then the right to keep and bear arms is nullified. That view would require a willingness by the framers of the Constitution to agree to this statement: If a well-regulated militia is not necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall (or may) be infringed. But it is absurd to think that the Framers would embrace that statement. Their political philosophy would not permit them to speak of a permissible infringement of rights. In their view, individuals, joining together to form a political unit, delegate rights and powers to government. But the people do not - cannot - consent to an infringement of their rights - such consent, logically, would make no sense. The term infringement implies lack of consent.

"If the Framers' concern had been to keep the national government from limiting the states' power to form militias, they might have written: "A well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the power of the States to form and control militias shall not be limited.'"

(Sheldon Richman, "What the Second Amendment Means," Freedom Daily Oct. 1995)

Richman also explains that nullifying the opening clause does not nullify the entire sentence:

"Imagine a long-lost constitution that stated: 'The earth being flat, the right of the people to abstain from ocean travel shall not be infringed.' Would anyone seriously argue that discovery of the Earth's spherical shape would justify compelling people to sail?"