Gun Ruling

* Re “High Court Takes On Congress,” editorial, May 2:

We agree that Justice Steven Breyer’s dissenting opinion was not a “reach,” but specific emphasis might well have been directed to the fact that Congress’ regulation of public school gun control is totally consistent with all court decisions since 1937 by which Congress’ responsibilities under the commerce clause have been sanctioned. Ignoring that history, the majority (5-4) opinion arrogantly overturned precedent without citing a single pertinent decision supporting its states rights’ approach in a commerce clause case. This approach, in the view of many of us, is nothing more than an unwarranted extension of the application of the conservative concept of the supremacy of state powers over federal powers.

We question your fear that a shadow has been cast over future federal regulatory authority. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s concurring opinion, adopted by Justice Anthony Kennedy, clearly indicates that they voted with the majority with considerable qualification and restraint, if not scholarly reluctance and abashment.

The Texas Lopez decision is an aberration which will be corrected for the primary reason that the Supreme Court will eventually be influenced by the overwhelming criticism of a large segment in the nation’s legal community.

MICHAEL C. O’MALLEY

Retired State Court Judge

Menifee

* The Supreme Court decided the federal government overstepped its authority with a ban on firearms within 1,000 feet of a school and that it’s up to the states to make such a law.

President Clinton showed that he still doesn’t get it. He can’t seem to stand the idea that there is any facet of life that Washington can’t regulate and control. He now wants another federal blackmail law to refuse school funding to any state that doesn’t have that gun law. Never mind that at least 40 of the 50 states already do.

TOM ERSKINE

Port Hueneme