1 October—Smith & Wesson finally saw the light and decided to move its corporate headquarters and lots of manufacturing out of gun-hostile Massachusetts. And manufacturing out of gun-hostile Connecticut. About bloody time, too! But why not move everything out of these states? S&W will still have a thousand employees in Springfield.

It would be entirely fitting for all firearms manufacturers to do the right thing and move all their headquarters and manufacturing facilities to gun-friendly locations, thus depriving the hostile states of jobs and tax revenue.

Bringing the Second Amendment into the discussion of how states treat firearms may seem pretty much a waste of time because even the United States Supreme Court has been pretty vague on too many aspects of it for too long. It’s possible—and hopeful—that the current Supremes will do something more definitive in the session scheduled to convene next Monday. But there’s no predicting the Supremes.

It would have made things easy had James Madison just written, “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” It’s clear and direct, leaving no room for interpretation. Well, maybe there’d be some question as to the meaning of “Arms.” All arms, including pitchforks, sickles, and knives, as would have been in common defensive and offensive use in the eighteenth century? Or just firearms, which a lot of people didn’t—and still don’t—own? But that’s not much of a problem, because firearms wouldn’t be excluded in all events.

And “shall not be infringed” clearly means that there may be no restriction at all, and even requiring people to apply for permits is unconstitutional.

But Madison had to preface that magnificent clause with “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.” Why?

That ablative clause (we don’t have ablatives in English, but that’s what it would be in Latin), which gives a reason for the declarative clause that states the law, is the only instance in the whole Constitution where this occurs. If none of the other articles or amendments—including Prohibition, mind you—need justification or rationalization, why does this one?

The grammatical fact, however, is that the proximate antecedent to “to keep and bear Arms” is “The right of the people,” not “A well regulated Militia.” And keep in mind that, first, a militia in the good old days comprised all able-bodied men, and second, our founding fathers didn’t like the idea of a standing army.

So where does all that get us? Depends on the Supremes.

And while we’re at it, the Connecticut Constitution (Article I, Section 15) is rather more direct: “Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” Try telling that to the functionaries who make you jump through fire-hoops to exercise a right that every citizen is supposed to have . . .