Letters to the Editor: Want a semiautomatic weapon? Keep it at the gun range, not at home
To the editor: Thanks to George Skelton for his column, “Newsom’s right on stricter gun laws but he misfired on his proposed constitutional amendment.”
When debating gun control, the very word “control” raises the defenses of many Americans who believe in an inalienable right to bear arms. But a reasonable person might be fine with being allowed to fire and keep semiautomatic weapons only at a professionally run gun range. A handgun that does not fire semiautomatically provides more than adequate protection at home or work.
My expert arms instructor in the U.S. Army during the late 1960s said that a civilian who does not participate in an annual refresher course should not have the opportunity to possess a semiautomatic or an automatic weapon.
Can gun owners, voters and politicians have an open, civil discourse that could result in a safer country for everyone?
Anthony Elia, Mission Viejo
..
To the editor: Continuously omitted from this discussion is the fact that virtually every handgun made in the past three decades happens to be semiautomatic, just like the AR-15. And, according to the FBI, handguns are used to kill many more Americans than rifles.
I wonder how many people realize that none of the restrictions (past, present or proposed) ban anything more than the military-style accessories found on some rifles. And if another federal ban is enacted, it will be as meaningless as our state ban championed by Gov. Gavin Newsom.
That’s right, reconfigured semiautomatic AR-15s are still legal to buy and own in California.
Lloyd Forrester, Simi Valley
..
To the editor: The current Supreme Court is filled with “originalists” who go to great lengths to make sure today’s laws conform with what the framers meant when they wrote the Constitution in the late 18th century.
Rather than trying to modify the 2nd Amendment or rewrite it, I suggest clarifying that the “arms” mentioned in the Constitution are legally restricted to the ones the writers were referring to at the time. Anything invented thereafter should not deserve constitutional protection, because those weapons are outside the scope of what the framers were talking about.
Michael Lampel, Granada Hills
