The Supreme Court on gun rights; fixing probation; Nike’s soccer ball

An ‘activist’ Supreme Court rules on guns

Re “Gun rights and states’ rights,” Editorial, June 29

The lawyers were the only winners here!

No longer can we debate the original intent of the 2nd Amendment by the drafters of the Constitution over the language which limited that right to militias. This decision came from an “activist” court, claiming to be conservative, which did not hesitate to overthrow precedent.

The court’s vague language in this opinion will result in challenges to every gun law in California — a waste of precious resources by both sides when money for violence prevention programs, for the mentally ill and for law enforcement remains in short supply.

California has the most effective and complete gun regulations of any state. Let’s hope our next attorney general is up to the task of defending them.

Ann Reiss Lane
Los Angeles
The writer is chair of Women Against Gun Violence

The 2nd Amendment reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The Times has supported the natural reading of the 2nd amendment, which includes the “well regulated militia” phrase.

It is strange that this phrase is neglected in adjudicating the 2nd Amendment. Supporting the amendment would require the induction into the National Guard or military reserves of both the firearm and its owner, would it not?

Where are the strict constructionists when you need them?

David Perlman
Laguna Beach

As a hard-right conservative and an NRA member, I rarely agree with The Times, but I must give credit where it is due. From your exposé of U-Haul to holding the mayor’s feet to the fire, you have shown an ever-increasing level of journalistic integrity.

Today’s editorial on the incorporation of the 2nd Amendment was another example. You disagree with the court’s decision but observe that if one amendment is incorporated, they all should be. We all have laws we don’t like, but they keep society civil.

Clayton Shafer
Inyokern, Calif.

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in his dissent that “firearms have a fundamentally ambivalent relationship to liberty.”

The business owners on their rooftops in Koreatown who protected their businesses during the riots debunk that notion. The people have a right to keep and bear arms. I would like to thank the court for its decision.

Helen Crosby
Los Angeles

The Framers thought the right to bear arms important enough to add to the Constitution. Let’s all support their definition of arms: muzzle-loading flintlocks!

Ray Singer
Malibu

A partial fix for Probation Dept.

Re “Fixing Probation,” Editorial, June 29

The Times was right to ask whether the Board of Supervisors “has the guts to establish discipline and restore integrity at the county Probation Department, where corruption apparently has become the norm,” but the editorial board seems content with an incomplete solution.

I never opposed the three motions before the board, and voted for them Tuesday. The record speaks for itself. They are partial solutions at best. The Probation Department needs more.

I am confident the Justice Department has the guts to do what is right, which is why I have called on them to broaden, deepen and quicken their role in enforcing civil rights at the Probation Department. It is my fervent hope that L.A. County officials will soon show they have the guts to admit they need help.

Mark Ridley-Thomas
Los Angeles
The writer is an L.A. County supervisor.

Low wages and the World Cup

Re “As world watches soccer, Nike critic sees red,” June 28

Why is it that these holier-than-thou critics like Jim Keady only denigrate the major U.S. brands?

Companies like Nike, Gap and Levi’s have used their muscle to establish good labor policies in factories that they do not own and cannot legally control.

Labor prices are usually defined by minimum wage policies set by countries. So why pick on branded apparel makers? Ask the same question of computer chip factories, tire manufacturers, furniture makers. They will tell you the same thing.

Why doesn’t Keady look for those who counterfeit products in factories that have no labor law oversight -- in this country and abroad?

And, if he is to bemoan the fact that workers cannot afford the goods they handle, why not look at the mechanics working at a Mercedes plant, or the people making scarves in a Gucci facility? I doubt they can afford the products they manufacture, either.

Ilse Metchek Pola
Marina del Rey
The writer is president, California Fashion Assn.

How many times do we have to read articles about Nike (or other companies) paying low wages in countries like Indonesia before the writer adds: What were the workers doing before Nike got there? What was the average daily wage before Nike? What is the purchasing power of that wage in the local economy? What type of government regulations make it difficult for Nike to pay more or less to these workers?

Without this information, it is impossible to make any kind of assessment on Nike’s foreign labor practices.

Figuring out Alzheimer’s

Re “Alzheimer’s tips from a victim,” Opinion, June 27

Thank you to The Times and to Dr. Arthur Rivin for this rare view of the development of Alzheimer’s disease in the voice of the patient himself.

I remember Dr. Rivin as a talented and compassionate physician who cared very much about his patients and about the hospital. He was always respectful of nurses and readily available to discuss the needs and care of the patients.

It is typical of Dr. Rivin to want to share his experiences so that others might learn from them. Always the physician and teacher. Thanks, Dr. R.

Judy Burger
Crane, R.N.
Marina Del Rey

Rivin’s article about his diagnosed Alzheimer’s sounds suspiciously unlike Alzheimer’s, and in reading about it I was reminded of a recent PBS report about Alzheimer’s patient Mary Ann Becklenberg, who talked as clearly and intelligently about her alleged condition as Rivin writes about his.

I believe the medical establishment is expanding its definition of Alzheimer’s to include a wider range of neurological dysfunction marginally treatable with profitable drugs, and then calling the result progress in the fight against Alzheimer’s.

Neither Rivin nor Becklenberg sound like classic Alzheimer’s victims. Let’s hope they never do.

Bruce Swanson
Glendale