Supreme Court Decisions
I think the Supreme Court is confused (“High Court Weakens Law on Gun Buyers,” June 28, vs. “High Court Refuses to Grant Constitutional ‘Right to Die,’ ” June 27). By watering down the Brady bill, the justices are surely guaranteeing every American “the right to die.”
PHILIP BAUMAN
Valley Village
* Re the ruling on the Brady law: Bill Clinton and Sarah Brady still don’t get the point. When your city is being burned to the ground, you don’t have five minutes, let alone five days (10 days in California), to buy a firearm for self-protection.
Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens [in his dissenting opinion] apparently does not understand what Patrick Henry meant when he said, “The great object is that every man be armed . . . everyone who is able may have a gun.” I will not argue with the Founding Fathers.
EDWIN J. APPLE
Lakewood
* Re “Alternatives Are Needed to Check on Gun Buyers,” editorial, June 30: “Baloney,” your editorial declares, to “a victory for the American people.” One less federal unfunded mandate is a victory for states’ rights.
Background checks? Absolutely! No rational person, including 99% of all gun owners, would or should object to keeping firearms from felons, fugitives or mentally unstable people. Your use of the totally unsubstantiated 250,000 of the aforementioned felons, fugitives and unstable people being denied handguns flies in the face of seven federal prosecutions with three convictions for violating the Brady law. Perhaps 249,993 of these supposed denials were because of mental instability, which is not yet prosecutable.
HUGH M. FLYNN
Simi Valley
* If sex offenders can be confined in a state treatment facility after serving their sentence (“Supreme Court OKs Sexual Predator Laws,” June 24), it could be argued that it’s legal to pick up all repeat sex offenders and place them in state facilities. Of course, after the routine examination by state-hired psychiatrists. The issue is not sex offenders. The issue is being put away for crimes you have not committed. This protection was guaranteed to us by our Constitution. It is now gone.
There are many common-sense methods of dealing with these and other crimes. If we need stiffer penalties--do it. If we need three-strikes laws in this area--do it. If we do it--do it right. More of our constitutional guaranties have been thrown away in the name of justice. We have all lost.
MINOR McDANIEL
Acton
* Re the ban on assisted suicide ruling: It is good that the U.S. Supreme Court upheld laws protecting individuals in the states of New York and Washington. This is a step in the right direction.
But the court should have provided more complete protection for vulnerable members of our society. People should be aware of their rights under the law now and take actions to protect themselves and their loved ones. Assisted suicide is not legal in any state at this time. The voters of Oregon will soon decide on their state policy. This court decision puts pressure on each state legislature, and expensive initiatives will no doubt come up again and again.
The justices didn’t make a law, as they did in Roe vs. Wade, but they didn’t take the high road and make the taking of life through assisted suicide illegal in every state once and for all. We must become watchdogs or the pro-death forces will be practicing involuntary euthanasia.
There should now be a hard second look at Roe vs. Wade and at least for a start make a similar decision and send the abortion issue back to the states.
HEIDI DREW RN
Anaheim
* Since you cannot ask a doctor for an assisted suicide, you can just watch pornography on the Internet (“Law Curbing Indecency on Internet Overturned,” June 27). That will bore you to death!
ETTIE COUNCILMAN
Long Beach