"For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Second Amendment secures an individual right to keep and to bear arms. Current case law leaves open and unsettled the question of whose right is secured by the Amendment. Although we do not address the scope of the right, our examination of the original meaning of the Amendment provides extensive reasons to conclude that the Second Amendment secures an individual right, and no persuasive basis for either the collective-right or quasi-collective-right views. The text of the Amendment’s operative clause, setting out a “right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” is clear and is reinforced by the Constitution’s structure. The Amendment’s prefatory clause, properly understood, is fully consistent with this interpretation. The broader history of the Anglo-American right of individuals to have and use arms, from England’s Revolution of 1688-1689 to the ratification of the Second Amendment a hundred years later, leads to the same conclusion. Finally, the first hundred years of interpretations of the Amendment, and especially the commentaries and case law in the pre-Civil War period closest to the Amendment’s ratification, confirm what the text and history of the Second Amendment require."
The basic version of this is:
"The Second Amendment secures a right of individuals generally, not a right of States or a right restricted to persons serving in militias."
This definitive opinion was supported by, among other things, a thorough textual and structural analysis. It very clearly and accurately identifies "A Well Regulated Militia, being Necessary to the Security of a Free State..." as being a prefatory subordinate clause and not Professor Lund's ablative absolute rhetorical device of Latin prose.
Specifically, "A Well Regulated Militia, being Necessary to the Security of a Free State..." is a prefatory declaration to a provision of legal code...the Constitution. As such, it can illuminate the operative language but is ultimately subordinate to it and cannot restrict it. And that operative language is "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Professor Lund should review his opinion with the understanding that the Second Amendment is a provision of legal code written in English, a Germanic language, and not a Latin rhetorical device (an Italic language). The rules are different.
But what do liberals care for rules...or laws?!
My mistake. Adam Freedman, not Professor Lund, should review his opinion.
In my zeal I erroneously attributed Adam Freedman’s comments to Professor Lund. So as not to besmirch Professor Lund with my mistake, could my post 24 be removed or corrected?
The one "absolute" construction in Latin that I'm familiar with (the ablative absolute) is not really absolute in any sense that I understand. (I don't know the origin of the naming of this construction.) Unlike other clauses, it does not have a subordinating conjunction (after, since/because, although, when, with) and requires the main clause to provide some indication of its meaning. It is the main clause which determines the sense of the absolute construction, not the other way around as argued by collective right theorists.
As my Dad would say, "They've got it ass-backwards."
There can be no well-regulated militia in any sense without the people FIRST keeping and bearing arms. Nor can there can be a secure state without a well-regulated milita. It looks like a simple transitive relation, depending upon an armed populace.