English Grammar and the Second Amendment

While browsing through an article discussing the collective versus the individual translations of the Second Amendment, I was struck by the curious capitalization used in the example provided: "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."I wondered if this was how it was actually written. I did some research.

I found that the amendment had been proposed in two forms to two different bodies. The version ratified by the states and authenticated by Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson reads:

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.

The version passed by Congress is the form that I had seen:

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.

Next I rechecked my understanding of the rules of capitalization. Here are two of the (many) rules:

"Capitalize federal or state when used as part of an official agency name or in government documents where these terms represent an official name. If they are being used as general terms, you may use lowercase letters."

"Proper nouns (the names of specific people, places, organizations, and sometimes things), eg: Golden Gate Bridge, Tony Blair."

It is clear that the meaning of each form of the Second Amendment is changed by the comma and the capitalization. In the first, capitalized “State” specifies one state, the United States and capitalized ‘Arms’ specifies one particular set of arms, those utilized by the United States. The comma in the first edition maintains the reference to the official armed forces of the United States.

The second, non-capitalized no comma version has an entirely different meaning and refers to the individual people and states when speaking of the right to bear arms.

Which form, then, is the "official" form? The constitution provides rules for passing an amendment. In effect, it must be ratified by both of the above mentioned official bodies, by Congress and by three quarters of the states. Therefore, as the same amendment was not ratified by both official bodies, the Second Amendment should be considered null.

But for those who do not accept this position, and choose to regard the Second Amendment as valid, note that the official hand written copy in the National Archives is the version passed by Congress, complete with capitalizations and comma after Militia. For those who choose to translate the Amendment literally, it must be read to specify one State (the United States), one Militia, and the Arms of that body.

(also see Arthur Leiber; New York Times: Constitution Confusion)