Letters - Saturday

SECOND AMENDMENT
At least justices didn't toss out all precedents in ruling

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision ruled that laws prohibiting the possession of handguns in private homes violates the 2Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In fact, they do not. That amendment's passage in 1791, historians relate, was to prevent the dismantling of the militia ("composed of the body of people trained in arms" as its legislative history states) in favor of a standing army. It is therefore surprising that Justice Antonin Scalia, who claims to be an "originalist," has politicized its meaning to the effect that the amendment is unrelated to military service and only relevant to individual property ownership.

Fortunately his present opinion does not claim an absolute right for convicted felons, adjudicated mental patients and underage persons, prohibit all gun regulation and licensing, or legitimize the use of "dangerous" weapons or firearms in sensitive places. But Scalia implies there is "time enough" for more of his and his colleagues' judicially active legislation.

An individual right, however, is not an absolute right or all other individuals would be without rights. The Bill of Rights protects fundamental rights, which are shared in relation to other persons. That understanding has been the basis for congressional, state, and local regulation of guns in the past. The Republican appointees' ruling should not, in the future, be extended to mimic other Bush administration deregulations, which have led to a dismantling of our civil rights and liberties in regard to detention, torture, rendition, surveillance and the like.

Bill Durland, Colorado Springs

High court legislates from bench, but that's not the case this time

Contrary to The Gazette's June 27 headline, "A ruling for gun rights/Individual's right created to own guns for self-defense," the Supreme Court did not "create" a new right for individuals to possess firearms for self defense. Nor did the court "wipe away" 200 years of precedent that the Second Amendment permits only militias to possess firearms. This story was not a report, a was an editorial by a gun ban proponent.

Prior to Thursday, the Supreme Court had never directly addressed the scope of the amendment, and it certainly did not do a 180 and find that militias were out and individuals were suddenly in. Obvious examples of the court creating rights not mentioned in the Constitution would certainly include Roe v. Wade and Miranda v. Arizona. Both those cases were sort of divined from what the court called the "penumbra" of the Constitution.

In this week's Heller decision, the court simply looked at the Second Amendment and told us what it says, based on what Justice Antonin Scalia found to be the intent of the Founding Fathers. Big difference.

Robert Moyers, Colorado Springs

Right to self defense not created by court, but granted by God

This is in response to your front-page article in the June 27 Gazette, "A ruling for gun rights/Individual's right created to own guns for self-defense."

Are you kidding me?

First of all, The Supreme Court "created" nothing. My right to self-defense was granted to me by God on the day I was a fertilized egg in my mother's womb. It was not granted by the U.S. Supreme Court on June 25, 2008.

Secondly, the Second Amendment has been crystal-clear since the day it was written: American citizens are not subjects to a frivolous government and have a God-given right to overthrow an oppressive government if necessary. God gave us the right, guns give us the ability.

Finally, it is a sad when four of the nine justices of the Supreme Court disagree that citizens have a right "to keep and bear arms." These people swore to uphold the Constitution. Why are they lying through their teeth to destroy it?

C.T. Kline, Colorado Springs

Founders wrote Constitution to safeguard citizens' rights

In his dissenting opinion in the Heller decision, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas." This is an incredibly scary view.

If indeed there is no untouchable right guaranteed by the Second Amendment based on these circumstances, why then, is there a specific right to anything in the Constitution if matters get bad enough? The whole idea of the Bill of Rights was to provide the people with specific untouchable rights the government could not infringe on.

Our constitutional rights are not situational, they are absolute; they are not convenient, they are concrete. This is why they were written into the Constitution, not for it to be a "living document" but to ensure Americans have untouchable rights.

This sets a scary precedent on the court; what is to stop the court from saying that Fifth Amendment rights of due process are not untouchable or sixth Amendment rights to counsel are situational?

Kevin Poyner, Colorado Springs

HUMAN RIGHTS
It's shameful that Lamborn cares so little for rule of law

Rep. Doug Lamborn is quite certain that all the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay are terrorists intent on destroying the United States ("Detainees show our need for Gitmo," Other Voices, June 25). His primary rationale seems to be that some Guantanamo prisoners in the past have "returned to the battlefield" after being released. We can't arbitrarily assume the guilt of one person based on the behavior of another. Luckily, Lamborn's assessment is irrelevant. Thanks to the recent Supreme Court decision, these prisoners, some of whom have been held without being officially charged with any crime for six years, will see their day in court.

They will be able to hear the evidence against them and will be able to defend themselves under the rule of law.

Furthermore, Lamborn's platitudes about the treatment of the prisoners (we let them pray and we don't even torture them) are missing the point. The problem is not just their treatment, but the basic fact of their interminable imprisonment without being convicted, or even accused, of a crime.

It's outrageous to see a member of our Congress cavalierly arguing that we should violate our Constitution simply because he believes that these people are guilty. Lamborn says, "We are foolishly treating a mortal struggle as a criminal prosecution and not as a war." No, we are wisely showing the world that we can defend ourselves while maintaining the fundamental ethics enshrined in our Constitution.

Nicholas Solter, Colorado Springs

CLIMATE CHANGE
We can make changes to laws without destroying economy

Sen. John McCain's plan to give a $300 million prize to the creator of an advanced auto battery shows that successful government involvement on environmental policy can involve the carrot rather than the stick.

While incentives should be a core piece in channeling us to a "greener" economy, other strategies to address energy independence and global warming should be left on the table. In response to problems caused by acid rain, George H. Bush implemented a cap-and-trade system that netted a 37 percent reduction of sulphur dioxide during the 1990s. Many doomsayers predicted an economic downturn, which did not occur during the 1990s.

In spite of having twice as many cars on the road as 1970, we have less pollution now because of regulation of pollution under the Clean Air Act. Perhaps these regulations played a small role in the slow economy of the 1970s, but the momentum to stagflation was well under way before this legislation went into effect.

Recent history illustrates that we can address environmental issues without severe damage to the economy. Considering the generally negative impact of global warming, we should employ the strategies that make meaningful cuts in carbon with minimal negative side effects.

Todd Nelson, Colorado Springs