English Usage Expert Interprets 2nd Amend.

[jdmidwest]

ENGLISH USAGE EXPERT INTERPRETS SECOND AMENDMENT

By J. Neil Schulman

...the sentence means that the people are the militia...

I recently 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 at Van Nuys High School for several years as well as having been a senior editor for Houghton Mifflin. He is considered the foremost expert in grammar in the school district, the person others go to when they need a definitive answer on English grammar. I asked Mr. Brocki 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 over punctuated, 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 than asked him if he could re-phrase the sentence to make it clearer. He responded:

"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 him if the sentence could 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."

Mr. Broki 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 re-phrase this sentence to make it clearer. He transformed it to:

"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 the 200 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 if another professional in English grammar or linguistics could interpret the sentence to mean otherwise. He said that he couldn't see any grounds for another interpretation. I asked him 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 is the author of Alongside Night (1982) and The Rainbow Cadenza (1983). He has recently founded the Committee to Enforce the Second Amendment. He can be reached at P.O. Box 94 Long Beach, Ca. 90801

[taxidermist]

Samething the Supreme court judge said.