In English, when the verb in a prefatory clause ends in -ing, there is a causal relation between it and the main clause when the verb is stative. In other words, the prefatory clause is a necessary CAUSE of the main clause. Always!!! Example 1 "The ship having docked into the port, the passengers can embark" or (same meaning) "Because the ship has docked into the port, the passengers can embark" Which means that the passengers cannot embark (main clause), if the ship hasn't docked into the port (prefatory clause) Example 2 "Standing on a chair, John can reach the ceiling" or (same meaning) "Because John is standing on a chair, he can reach the ceiling" Which means that John cannot reach the ceiling (main clause), if he doesn't stand on a chair (prefatory clause) Example 3 "Books being necessary for the students to complete the project, the Library shall not close" or (same meaning) "Because books are necessary.... , the Library cannot close" Which means that the Library can close (main clause), as soon as the books are not necessary for the students to complete the project (prefatory clause). Example 4 "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." or (same meaning) "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" Which means that he right of the people to keep and bear arms can be infringed (main clause) when a Militia is no longer necessary to the security of a free State. The Heller decision and other Supreme Court decisions have created an individual right to own guns. It is now "the law of the land". But this "right" is not in the text of the 2nd A. It was legislation passed by very activist Supreme Court Justices.
Problem. It does not say the right to keep and bear arms is conditional on the militia. It says that is a reason, but not necessarily the only reason. Further, the last part of the statement is unambiguous. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
Also the states aren't very free any more. Since there's no more free states, the 2A is null and void. Or maybe since the 2A has been infringed, we can just say we anulled it a long time ago. ... None of which in any way refutes the historical fact, recorded in their own words, that the founders believed that a well armed populace was integral to individual liberty in America. Nor does it refute how the militia is legally defined in US Code. Nor does it refute the fact that no amount of gun control will ever disarm America anyway no matter how much the wording is twisted.
Any other reason is not on the 2nd A. Which is my point: if there is some "right to own guns", it most definitely is not in the 2nd A.
Nor is it intended to refute any of that. The only thing it does refute is that there is some "right to own guns" enshrined in the 2nd A.
We should not infringe the right to bear arms as part of a well regulated militia. Just like we should not infringe the right to deny quarters to a soldier in times of peace, as the 3rd Amendment says. They are just both... irrelevant. That's all.
It does not say as part of a well regulated militia. That was a reason. Not necessarily the only reason. If they meant it to be conditional, they would have stated it so. "shall not" is an absolute. No exceptions.
There is another argument. If the citizens do not have the arms in their possession, formation of a militia would be of little use. The assumption is that the citizens have control of the arms at all times..
There might have been that assumption. Especially because gun ownership wasn't even an issue at the time. People could own a gun just like they could own any property: a hat, a house, a shirt, a horse... But there is no more a "right" to own weapons in the 2nd A than there is to own clothes. Even though it was "assumed" that militia members would be fully clothed. These two things were just not addressed. Simple as that.
Second Amendment "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." It makes no exceptions.
The rest of the sentence does not change that key phrase. It is not conditional. It does not say "can be infringed, if there is no militia. It says it shall not be infringed. The word militia does not make it conditional. If it was conditional, they would have said so.
From heller (2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
It does not say that is a requirement. It is given as a reason, but it does not that is the only reason. At the time it was written, arms were also used as protection from Indians and wild animals, but they are not mentioned either.
Wrong as usual, you would know if you'd read anny of the other associated documents. The meaning in this case is simple you cannot have a militia if the citizenry are not armed ergo and armed citizenry as an absolute necessity in a free state
