Letters to the Editor: Supreme Court reform can free us from Antonin Scalia’s disastrous gun opinion

Late Justice Antonin Scalia speaks in Washington in 2014.
Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in 2016, is seen speaking in Washington on Nov. 6, 2014. He wrote the Supreme Court’s opinion in District of Columbia vs. Heller.
(Associated Press)
Share via

To the editor: Columnist Jackie Calmes comes to the same conclusion as most scholars that the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia got it exactly wrong in his tortured decision on individual gun rights in 2008.

The 2nd Amendment when properly read is now pretty much obsolete, but the quickest way to right Scalia’s wrong is not to try and further amend the Constitution, but to restore a modicum of fairness to the Supreme Court. To do this, Congress should set reasonable term limits on justices and temporarily expand the court by two members until the new limits have worked their course.

The federal government can then allow states to limit gun ownership to licensed hunters. Gun clubs and firing ranges could also be allowed to own guns so hobbyists could play “Rambo” to their heart’s content.


There would be no guns on the streets or anywhere else that isn’t under lock and key.

Don Stewart, Santa Rosa Valley


To the editor: Thanks to Calmes for her column on the 2008 District of Columbia vs. Heller ruling.

Every time we have a mass shooting, it is emphasized how important it is that something has to be done about gun control. And every time, nothing is accomplished as the effort fades away until the next shooting.

How about repealing the 2nd Amendment and starting over? Of course, we all know how likely that is. Even if such an amendment were to be proposed, it would require a two-thirds vote in the House and the Senate and, then, ratification by three-fourths of the states.

Fat chance of that happening.

John Schoonover, Laguna Woods


To the editor: There is irony here. The conservatives of the court will not rein in the proliferation of guns. But they also want to remove the choice of abortions.

Guns yes, abortions no. So what could happen is the child who had to be born could someday be killed by one of those guns.


Does this make sense?

Marian Gasser, La Mirada