Enforcing Gun Laws

* I was greatly interested in your article, “Mother Charged After Girl, 9, Fires Gun at School” (June 8), particularly the fact that the mother is charged with receiving stolen property: the gun.

I am disturbed by what appears to be selective enforcement of our laws when they deal with stolen firearms. My home was burglarized and police later recovered four of my stolen weapons during an investigation of an individual discharging a firearm at his residence. However, charges for possessing stolen firearms were never brought against this individual, nor was he charged with unlawfully discharging a firearm within city limits!

It appears to me that with all the hoopla over gun control, illegally possessing unregistered, stolen firearms would have resulted in this individual being charged with four counts of receiving stolen property, punishable with a $4,000 fine and four years in prison.

Before new gun control laws are written, there should be strict enforcement of existing laws, without prejudice.

ERIC DRESSER

Burbank

* Regarding “Playing a Dangerous Game” (June 6), about the deputy sheriff firing at a 12-year-old, toy-gun-toting boy hiding behind a tree, I found the father’s criticism of the deputy’s actions to be misdirected. If the father is truly concerned about the welfare of his son, he would not permit his son to possess a realistic-looking toy weapon, and certainly would impress upon his son that pointing a gun at a peace officer is never appropriate.

Frankly, the family I feel relief for is that of the officer. Imagine the horror they would be going through had the deputy not missed. Showcasing a color photo of the boy does a disservice to him. His actions were not of a nature to warrant posing for The Times.

STEPHEN H. SCHECK

Hawthorne

* Re “Feinstein Emerges as Leading Foe of Firearms Industry” (June 9): In 1974, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, then a San Francisco supervisor, was targeted by the New World Liberation Front. Your article says, “For a time she carried a .38-caliber pistol in her purse.”

Under the 2nd Amendment that was her right; it was smart and made sense, as she faced a clear and present danger to herself and family. And that’s the point here--that exact same logic is relevant today for the rest of us. I hear what Feinstein says, but I notice that when push came to shove she elected for a handgun--smart lady.

JOHN F. HILL

Huntington Beach