Can we just admit the Second Am. is hopelessly vague?

For you non-lawyer/non-DC-ites: The DC gun law, a very restrictive one, was recently struck down by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. That decision was appealed to SCOTUS. It is not clear whether the Court will take up the question. Nonetheless, it has lead to a reopening to this stickiest of Const. interpretation questions.

Here is the text of the Second Amendment:

“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 Legal Times asks the right question: What the heck do you make of all those commas?

My answer: Because there is no sensible way to read the sentence, you can read them any (and it) any way you like. Which means that the gun debate will rage forever.

Here are three possible readings:

Pro-gun: The first clause is 'precatory' - i.e. throat clearing - so that the substance of the sentence is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." What do we do with that comma? Oh, in the 18C, those commas were not grammatical indicators, but merely indications of a pause. So you mean ignore it? Ok.

Anti-gun: The first clause is the context for the main clause. "“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.” Ok, but you got rid of 2 commas. Yup. They're, um, pauses.

Strict: Strictly speaking the comma pairs indicate subjunctive clauses, grammatical asides, so that the body of the sentence reads: “A well regulated Militia shall not be infringed."

Strict, assuming the secondary clauses are explanatory: The text set off by a comma, like this, can be explanatory. If so, the sentence can read, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State (explanation of purpose), the right of the people to keep and bear Arms (explanation of what a militia is), shall not be infringed.” I am happiest with this reading because it follows the statutory interpretation canon which states that every word and comma in a statute has meaning.

The problem is, it leaves the question completely open: If a militia = the right to keep and bear arms, do we have that right absent the need for such a militia?

Rage, rage against the dying of the argument.