To the Editor:
*In District of Columbia v Heller, 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment is an individual right, afforded to each individual citizen.
*In US v Miller, 1939, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment specifically extended to firearms in “common use” by the military.
*The Second Amendment and the rest of our rights are granted by a power greater than mankind or any government. As such, the government cannot legitimately restrict or take away these rights. If these rights are to be limited, they must be surrendered by the people, and the limitation must provide some overwhelming benefit to society to compensate for the restriction placed on each individual’s rights. Remember, if the government grants a right, the government can take it away.
*“Universal” background checks — has anyone stopped to think about how this would be implemented or how much money it would cost. I would like to see the details; I would not mind an expansion of background checks as long as it does not involve a federal gun registration.
*In regards to a federal gun registration database. In 2012 Canada rescinded a law requiring universal registration for all rifles and shotguns. (Pistols are banned in Canada.) It was found that the database cost exponentially more than advocates said, did not prevent crime or help in the tracking of illegal weapons, and was used to confiscate previously legal weapons when unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats decided to add additional weapons to the banned list, without any input from the legislature or outside experts.
*Some suggest heavily taxing weapons and ammunition. Um, so only the rich should be able to own guns? Last year people said it was unconstitutional to require citizens to provide a photo ID to vote, because it would place a financial burden on them and a poor person would be unable to vote, similar to post Civil War era poll taxes. How then is it constitutional to require burdensome fees and taxes on persons wishing to exercise their Second Amendment rights?
*Some pundits say that the Founding Fathers could not have possibly envisioned such weapons and technology that we have today, so the Second Amendment does not protect these weapons. The founding fathers could not have envisioned radio, TV, the Internet or GPS. So by this same logic, First Amendment protections should not be extended to the Internet, only to face-to-face verbal and print communications. The police and the government should be able to track a citizen with GPS or wiretap your phone without a warrant. The Fourth Amendment was not specifically written with these technologies in mind. The founders of our country purposefully wrote many of our Rights in a broad manner to ensure that they could and would apply in the future. The Second Amendment does not say we have a right to bear muskets.
Crows Nest Lane, Sandy Hook February 25th 2013