Letters: Guns and the Constitution

Re “Gun control made harder,” Editorial, Feb. 18

In your argument against the recent U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision invalidating San Diego County’s restrictions on concealed carry firearms, you don’t go into much detail as to why this particular restriction is unconstitutional.

California banned the open carry of firearms. As many pointed out at the time, this blanket prohibition made it impossible for typical California residents to “bear arms” outside the home, and so strengthened arguments against restrictive concealed carry requirements.

If the Constitution allows “the people” to “bear arms,” then a regulatory scheme that essentially prohibits that right is unconstitutional.

You may still disagree with the 2-1 majority in this case, but the judges’ argument deserves to be fairly represented.

Peter Wilson

Altadena

The Times cites the Florida case of Michael Dunn, who shot into a car and killed one teenager after complaining about loud music. Suppose that when Dunn was disturbed by this music, there was no gun available to him.

In situations like this, the result too often yields a killing, a killer and broken, grieving families. We do not want more guns, concealed or otherwise.

Bert Eifer

Woodland Hills

There are thousands of concealed carry permit holders in California, and I find it curious that you went all the way to Florida to find a case of misuse of a permit. It seems you could not find a case in California to use as an example, or you would have. Was that the only case of misuse you could find in the last year by any of the millions of permit holders in the United States?

Research has shown that concealed carry permit holders are far less likely than others to commit crimes. Concealed carry has long been called a disaster waiting to happen, but the facts just do not bear that out.

Robert Braley

Bakersfield

ALSO:

Letters: Advice on saving water

Letters: Obama’s executive orders

Letters: Back to the future with food trucks