ENGLISH USAGE EXPERT INTERPRETS 2ND AMENDMENT
by J. Neil Schulman
July 17, 1991

California Libertarian Party 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 overpunc-
tuated, 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 modi-
fying “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 elector-
ate — 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 sen-
tence: “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 other-
wise?”

Brocki: “I can’t see any grounds for another interpre-
tation.”

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.