2nd Amendment quarterbacking

Re “Justices affirm gun rights,” June 27

Well, what do you know. Someone has forced a slim majority of the Supreme Court to listen to a reading of the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

After spending decades stripping away citizens’ rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the court apparently saw no way around the fact that the phrase “shall not be infringed” actually means shall not be infringed.

How special we all must feel that after bestowing constitutional protections on illegal aliens, terrorists and criminals, the court saw fit to offer a few crumbs to honest American citizens.

Bobby Florentz

La Habra

--

The Supreme Court’s opinion flew in the face of judicial precedent and states’ rights when it twisted the 2nd Amendment in favor of the gun lobby.

Individuals, it seems, have a right to own handguns. Do non-gun-owning citizens have rights? Can we live safely in our homes without the risk of a stray bullet piercing our walls? Do we have the right to walk in the streets without the fear of being caught in a crossfire?

Hundreds of thousands of Americans were injured or killed by guns in the last 10 years. Studies show that people who keep a gun in their home are far more likely to be injured or killed -- in an accident, through a violent episode or through suicide -- than they are likely to “defend hearth and home.”

Let’s amend the 2nd Amendment and give rights to those who want to live in peace and safety in our community without becoming victims of senseless gun violence.

Kay C. Holmen

Glendale

The writer is president of the California chapters of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

--

Many disagree that our Constitution was written with a flexible eye on the future.

But it was designed to adapt to a world far removed from 18th century America. The framers of the Constitution could not have fathomed the weaponry and bloodshed accorded to us, courtesy of the 2nd Amendment.

One of the nation’s founders-- Thomas Jefferson -- had this to say:

“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in law and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”

Jill Chapin

Santa Monica

--

Nothing in Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion prohibits Congress, states or communities from outlawing gun shows, enacting mandatory waiting periods, keeping guns from felons and the mentally ill, banning assault weapons and cop-killer bullets or requiring handgun registration and trigger locks.

Harold N. Bass

Porter Ranch

--

In one day, The Times featured these stories: one about the Supreme Court’s ruling preventing the District of Columbia from enforcing its stringent gun controls and another on the shooting of a body-shop owner by a tagger.

I would like to thank the five-justice majority for affirming my constitutional right to be shot, and likely die, when some nut exercises his right to carry a gun and use it as he sees fit.

Len Goodman

Orange

--

Just over a month ago, howls of outrage about judicial activism bellowed across the nation. An activist Supreme Court, by a one-vote margin, attacked a law enacted by the people. The institution of marriage had been damaged, protesters roared. Judicial tyranny was out of control and ruining society, they moaned. Newly acknowledging a constitutional right was outrageous, they declared.

This month, another activist Supreme Court by a one-vote margin attacked a law enacted by the people through their elected representatives. An individual, not a militia, has a right to bear arms -- a right never before acknowledged as a constitutional right.

Where are those same shrill voices complaining about living under judicial tyranny now?

Steven Krinsky

Lancaster

--

Re “Guns, yes and no,” editorial, June 27

The Times’ editorial board finds the Supreme Court ruling against the D.C. gun ban “less suited for a 21st century America bedeviled by gun crime.”

Does The Times find the abuse of the 1st Amendment right to free speech equally unsuitable for a 21st century America bedeviled by rampant immorality?

Harshad Patel

Trabuco Canyon

--

There is nothing “disappointing” about the Supreme Court decision upholding the right of private citizens to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment.

Those of us fortunate enough to live in safe, suburban neighborhoods must not abridge the right of those who don’t to keep and bear arms.

Perhaps the majority of justices understand the simple truth known by my fellow gun owners here, in Los Angeles and around the world: A gun is like a tourniquet. You don’t need one very often, but when you need one, you need it very, very badly.

Christopher M.

Zarpas

Virginia Beach, Va.