ENGLISH USAGE EXPERT INTERPRETS 2ND AMENDMENT
by J. Neil Schulman
I just had a conversation with Mr. A.C. Brocki, Editorial
Coordinator for the Office of Instruction of the Los Angeles
Unified School District. Mr. Brocki taught Advanced Placement
English for several years at Van Nuys High School, as well as
having been a senior editor for Houghton Mifflin. I was referred
to Mr. Brocki by Sherryl Broyles of the Office of Instruction of
the LA Unified School District, who described Mr. Brocki as the
foremost expert in grammar in the Los Angeles Unified School
District -- the person she and others go to when they need a
definitive answer on English grammar.
I gave Mr. Brocki my name, told him Sherryl Broyles referred me,
then asked him to parse the following sentence:
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a
free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall
not be infringed."
Mr. Brocki informed me that the sentence was overpunctuated, but
that the meaning could be extracted anyway.
"A well-schooled electorate" is a nominative absolute.
"being necessary to the security of a free State" is a
participial phrase modifying "electorate"
The subject (a compound subject) of the sentence is "the right of
the people"
"shall not be infringed" is a verb phrase, with "not" as an
adverb modifying the verb phrase "shall be infringed"
"to keep and read books" is an infinitive phrase modifying
"right"
I then asked him if he could rephrase the sentence to make it
clearer. Mr. Brocki said, "Because a well-schooled electorate is
necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the
people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
I asked: can the sentence be interpreted to restrict the right to
keep and read books to a well-schooled electorate -- say,
registered voters with a high-school diploma?" He said, "No."
I then identified my purpose in calling him, and read him the
Second Amendment in full:
"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."
He said he thought the sentence had sounded familiar, but that
he hadn't recognized it.
I asked, "Is the structure and meaning of this sentence the same
as the sentence I first quoted you?" He said, "yes." I asked
him to rephrase this sentence to make it clearer. He transformed
it the same way as the first sentence: "Because a well-regulated
militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right
of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
I asked him whether the meaning could have changed in two hundred
years. He said, "No."
I asked him whether this sentence could be interpreted to
restrict the right to keep and bear arms to "a well-regulated
militia." He said, "no." According to Mr. Brocki, the sentence
means that the people \are\ the militia, and that the people
have the right which is mentioned.
I asked him again to make sure:
Schulman: "Can the sentence be interpreted to mean that the right
can be restricted to "a well-regulated militia?"
Brocki: "No, I can't see that."
Schulman: "Could another, professional in English grammar or
linguistics interpret the sentence to mean otherwise?"
Brocki: "I can't see any grounds for another interpretation."
I asked Mr. Brocki if he would be willing to stake his
professional reputation on this opinion, and be quoted on this.
He said, "Yes."
At no point in the conversation did I ask Mr. Brocki his opinion
on the Second Amendment, gun control, or the right to keep and
bear arms.
J. Neil Schulman
July 17, 1991
http://www.wwnet.net/~jcsiler/document/SECOND.TXT
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"