Letters to the Editor: The Supreme Court just made it easier to massacre Americans

A bump stock is shown attached to a semiautomatic rifle.
A bump stock, which allows a more rapid rate of fire, is shown attached to a semiautomatic rifle at a gun store.
(Rick Bowmer / Associated Press)
Share via

To the editor: This past weekend, I called Central Texas Gun Works in Austin, Texas, and spoke with an employee. He informed me that as of June 15, it is again legal to purchase a bump stock. (“The Supreme Court went out of its way to ignore common sense on bump stocks,” Opinion, June 14)

The owner of that business sued to make these “accessories” legal again, saying the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) went too far in banning the sale of bump stocks. And, the Supreme Court agreed, striking down the federal regulation in 6-3 ruling.

While I was told by the employee that the store did not have any of these semiautomatic rifle enhancements in stock, I could buy one online for $350.


Yes! For just $350, anyone can purchase an add-on that offers the capability to shoot 400-800 rounds per minute. That’s just what our nation needs: An easier way to massacre.

In a concurring opinion for the Supreme Court, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote that it is up to Congress to ban bump stocks, not the ATF. So, in this country, where the No. 1 killer of children is gun violence, kids will just need to wait for Congress to act. What could go wrong?

Elizabeth Osborne, Santa Barbara


To the editor: Op-ed articles and editorials often deride or praise the Supreme Court based on the policy implications of their decisions. But the court’s mandate is not to do “what’s best” in terms of policy (or even enforcement). That’s the mandate of Congress.

The court’s job is to determine if a law or an executive action is consistent with the various provisions of the U.S. Constitution.


In this case, the court decided that, if the objective is to ban bump stocks, then Congress must amend the law to specify such a prohibition. And that decision is correct.

If there is to be public pressure put on a branch of the government, it should be on Congress to enact better policies, not the court to decide what’s best.

Peter Marston, Glendale


To the editor: I recently returned from a two-week trip to multiple countries in Europe, and the topic of conversation with many people I met was why there are so many gun deaths in America.

There is only one answer: The American judicial system has refused to recognize that the needs addressed by the 2nd Amendment, added to the Constitution in 1791, bear no resemblance to our needs of today.


We have no fear of slave uprisings or invasions by foreign armies, and we have a standing military. Today, the only thing we have to fear is getting shot by someone else.

Chuck Heinz, West Hills


To the editor: A baseball team has six of its nine players get hits in a game. With only that information, we have no way of knowing who got the hits.

The Supreme Court issues a 6-3 decision in a case — any case. We immediately know who made up the six and who were in the three without knowing anything about the case itself.

So don’t tell me the justices are not politically motivated.

Larry Macedo, West Hills