Guns and Commas
In this ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals, the meaning of the Second Amendment depends — in large measure — on the significance of a comma.
In the case of Shelly Parker et al v. District of Columbia, six residents of Washington D.C. complained that the district’s very restrictive gun laws prevent them from exercising the right to bear arms, and the court agreed.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the
security of a free State, the right of the people to keep
and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
According to the ruling:
The provision’s second comma divides the Amendment into
two clauses; the first is prefatory, and the second operative.
Appellants’ argument is focused on their reading of the Second
Amendment’s operative clause. According to appellants, the
Amendment’s language flat out guarantees an individual right
“to keep and bear Arms.” Appellants concede that the prefatory
clause expresses a civic purpose, but argue that this purpose,
while it may inform the meaning of an ambiguous term like
“Arms,” does not qualify the right guaranteed by the operative
portion of the Amendment.The District of Columbia argues that the prefatory clause
declares the Amendment’s only purpose—to shield the state
militias from federal encroachment—and that the operative
clause, even when read in isolation, speaks solely to military
affairs and guarantees a civic, rather than an individual, right.
In other words, according to the District, the operative clause is
not just limited by the prefatory clause, but instead both clauses
share an explicitly civic character. The District claims that the
Second Amendment “protects private possession of weapons
only in connection with performance of civic duties as part of a
well-regulated citizens militia organized for the security of a
free state.” . . . In short, we take the District’s position to be
that the Second Amendment is a dead letter.
