2nd Amendment and Weapons Ban

Re “Court Upholds State Assault Weapons Ban,” Dec. 6: Why do people (and courts) insist on debating amendments to the Constitution as if they were stand-alone documents? The Constitution exists to affirm individual rights and limit the powers of government.

The Times seems to recognize context as a factor when discussing the 1st Amendment but not the 2nd. Perhaps this is because so many people now assume a right of irresponsibility and incompetence.

People have a right to be incompetent, so we must sue anyone who produces a dangerous product, like a clothes iron or a hot cup of coffee. People have a right to be irresponsible, so we must outlaw anything that requires responsibility, like owning a firearm. I’ll grant you that incompetence and irresponsibility are commonplace, but I don’t believe they are inalienable rights. Of course, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals would probably disagree.

Our Constitution boldly asserts that individual citizens may competently and responsibly govern ourselves. Is it not so?

Dean Zatkowsky

Ojai

*

If we really want to defeat terrorism in this country, we will start with an assault weapons ban. Instead, the U.S. is the easiest place in the world to obtain such deadly weapons.

The current administration would oppose such state laws on the basis of the 2nd Amendment (read the National Rifle Assn.) or the so-called “right to keep and bear arms.” But it has no problem with laws and pronouncements limiting other constitutional rights of American citizens, such as privacy and due process, in the name of the war on terror. Maybe it is stupidity rather than politics -- either conclusion is scary.

I.C. Black

Newport Beach

*

Judge Stephen Reinhardt’s interpretation of the 2nd Amendment isn’t very convincing. Why would this supposed “state” right be under the 2nd instead of the 10th Amendment? Using Reinhardt’s argument, George Washington and his army in the American Revolution were the equivalent of Shays’ rebellion, a “mob of armed individuals” -- and we’d all be flying the Union Jack.

Michael Baldridge

Glendale

*

Three cheers to our U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for agreeing with the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1939 ruling that the 2nd Amendment does not give individuals the right to bear arms.

I now hope that the National Rifle Assn. forces the Supreme Court to make a ruling. I am curious as to the extent of the political corruption of the Supreme Court’s five conservative members in ignoring the Constitution and simply pandering to the ultraconservative credo.

Martin J. Weisman

Westlake Village