DEAR EDITOR:
I doubt that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals really cared
what the founders meant in the Second Amendment by their distorted
ruling of its meaning.
DEAR EDITOR:
I doubt that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals really cared what the founders meant in the Second Amendment by their distorted ruling of its meaning. The justices have interpreted the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” as collective right held by the state through the militia.
Anyone with a modicum of learning knows that the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution to proscribe government from infringing on cherished individual rights. In the context of the other amendments, they would be hard-pressed to not consistently use the same tortured logic. Does “people” in the First Amendments mean the state, as in “the right of the people to peaceably assemble?” Does “people” in the Fourth Amendment mean the state, as in “the right of the people to be secure in their houses?” I think not. The founding fathers used brevity of words when writing the Constitution and simple language that average people could understand to convey their thoughts. Today we need a legal interpretation for the definition of “is.” I will not be compelled to personally abide by any decision that makes such a mockery of law and language.
Warren Seifert, Gilroy
Submitted Wednesday, Dec. 11
