Now here they are using the three comma version, I wish
they would make up their mind, one, two, or three.
Not that it matters to me, I understand the framers perfectly, as they intended a citizen should.
Now as to "shall not be infringed", they do not address
that here except perhaps....
"...Our analysis is limited to determining whether the Amendment secures an individual, collective, or quasi-collective right. We do not consider the substance of that right, including its contours or the nature or type of governmental interests that would justify restrictions on its exercise, and nothing in this memorandum is intended to address or call into question the constitutionality, under the Second Amendment, of any particular limitations on owning, carrying, or using firearms. ..."
The OLC certainly slithered out of that difficulty, didn't they? Absent the verbosity of legalize, they just said that even though the OLC considers the RKBA to be individual, they have no problem with those laws that "collectively" now infringe upon those same "individual"rights.
IMHO, "Collective Rights" is an oxymoron. "Rights" are inherently "Individual. "Collective" applies only to "Protections" and "Powers" only to government. "Groups" have "Protections", "Government" as "Powers". Neither has "Rights". Only Individuals have "Rights".
But at least the new opinion is a start.