Authorizing implies that the act is being allowed pursuant to execution of official duties but is not just being allowed, it is also being expected or mandated, thus necessitating the authority.
Hmm...
Were you aware our Second Amendment was never considered a prohibition against keeping and/or bearing arms except in certain circumstances, but rather, a prohibition against any governmental act restricting our right to keep and bear arms?
"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by a rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should at tempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." - William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed., Philadelphia, 1803).
Bottom line, the right to keep and bear arms is supreme. Unfortunately, it's been glossed over, twisted, distorted, subverted, and otherwise mangled any way a (fortunately) few courts have seen fit to fit their personal, non-Constitutional Agendas.
Fortunately, our very own Library of Congress, with which I'm intimately familiar, having spent portions of two early 1980's summers there perusing the writings of our Founding Fathers, remains intact, and I'm quite certain utterly beyond reproach of any court, givin the fact that 99.999% of those volumes are now online and spread throughout the world.
Any federal or Supreme Court Justice who attempted to interject personal bias over the exceptionally well-documented legal origens of our country, from the Founders themselves, to the earliest Judges, to the philisophical constructs from which arose the origens of our country...
...they'd have an extremely difficult time removing themselves from the resulting quagmire into which they'd find themselves embroiled.
I thank God our Founders saw fit to establish the Library of Congress, which has provided an historical record from which no "re-writer of history" can escape, regardless of either political affiliation or level of entrenchment in our government.
Put simply: You're on the stand, Jack, and if your words don't match recorded history, our eyebrows will raise, superceded by our doubts as to your integrity, and swiftly followed by measures to remove you from office, regardless of how high an office you may hold.
Public trust is everything.
ETA, I tried to give him a heads up on this thread, but eye95 is no longer taking messages. Well, give and take is the name of the game, and if someone refuses to play according to the loose, but widely-held rules of the game, then the game goes on.