Opinion on gun law clarified

Josey1

Opinion on gun law clarifiedBy Dimitri VassilarosTRIBUNE-REVIEWThursday, December 13, 2001 Voyeurs will love to see one of my reader's views about a recent column. A Cleveland Browns player was arrested in the Strip District and charged with a felony because police found his unregistered gun in the console of his vehicle. I tried to illustrate why law-abiding citizens should not need the government's approval to exercise their Second Amendment right -- just like they don't need written permission from the government before they exercise any of the other rights articulated in the Bill of Rights. Thomas P. Luscher sent me the following e-mail message explaining why I was wrong. His edited comments are in quotes, and my responses are in italics. " I was astounded to read your column in which you opined that the police action in arresting Gerard Warren for carrying in his vehicle an unlicensed .45-caliber Glock represented an effort to 'strip law abiding citizens of their Second Amendment rights.' " I'm astounded our government is stripping us of our rights. " some of your less astute fans might even decide to act on this view and get themselves into deep legal trouble." All my readers are astute, or else why would they read my swill? I hope they '"act" by demanding repeals of laws limiting law-abiding citizens from exercising their Constitutional rights. "License-to-carry laws which require the issuance of a license to an applicant meeting certain requirements (such as not being a convicted felon), have uniformly been held to pass muster under the Second Amendment." Why do we need license from the state to exercise only this right? It's not called the "Bill of Rights (except one)." Even felons who have served their time are protected by the Bill of Rights -- EXCEPT the Second Amendment. Some amendments should not be more equal than others. "In Allegheny County, licenses to carry are granted, after appropriate background checks, as a matter of right." Does the government check your background before you exercise your First Amendment rights? And then does it keep a record of how you exercised those rights? "I would impose an additional requirement requiring an applicant to demonstrate at least a rudimentary knowledge of gun safety and periodically qualify on a range by being able to hit a standard pistol target consistently at 50 feet." So the government will determine if you are worthy of your Second Amendment rights? If so, why not ask the government if you are worthy of your First Amendment rights, as well? "The idea of a bunch of neophytes, who barely know which end the bullet comes out of, running around with concealed handguns is not one which is conducive to public safety." Actually, states that allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed guns generally have lower crime rates than other states. And ,of course, the cities that enforce the most draconian laws that violate the meaning of the Second Amendment generally have the highest crime rates. Um, do you see a pattern here? "May I suggest a clarification to your column might be in order?" Consider it clarified. Dimitri Vassilaros is the morning radio talk host on News Radio 1170 WWVA. His e-mail address is dimitriv@stargate.net. http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/columnists/s_7977.html