Interpreting the Bill of Rights

Ron Ekard is ready to declare the Second Amendment null and void (letter, June 20) because “none of today’s guns are covered by the Second Amendment.” He should use more care in interpreting the Constitution. Consider the many other things that did not exist “in those days”: radio, television, photography, xerography, records, tapes, compact disks to name a few. Yet, First Amendment protection has been readily extended to all of these. Is Ekard ready to foreclose protection for these on the unconvincing grounds that they were not around when the Constitution was written? Or do we rally around the Bill of Rights only for non-Second Amendment causes?

I am concerned over the growing number of gun-related crimes, but I would hope our response might be a bit more creative than the narrow interpretation suggested by Ekard.

WILLIAM S. LaSOR JR.

Corona del Mar