Letters To The Editor

LAW AND JUSTICE

Militia means irregulars - citizens

Walter Becker (Letters, April 22) tries to offer proof that the Second Amendment only applies to the militia, but his reasoning is faulty.

What does he think the militia is? The National Guard? I think not; it’s closer to being a standing army than was most of the Royal Army that invaded the then-rebellious 13 colonies!

A militia by definition is an irregular force. It usually includes all able-bodied citizens between the ages of 17 and 45. In simplest terms, a militia is a group of armed citizens who have banded together temporarily to defend their homes and community.

If we went with Becker’s interpretation, the Second Amendment would grant a standing army and a police force the right to maintain weapons, a right that has no need to be declared in a document such as the Bill of Rights, even in the 1770s.

I am in favor of intelligent gun control. Should the United States adopt a system along the lines of Switzerland’s, I could not be happier. To shooters and collectors like me, it would mean more well-maintained ranges, inexpensive ammunition and, best of all, one free weapon issued to every responsible citizen. But it’s not going to happen. Why? Because too many people out there don’t mean gun control, they mean total annihilation of private firearms ownership. Until gun control advocates start respecting shooters, we will have no choice but to fight you, tooth and nail, every chance we get. Ryan G. Anderson Pullman

Law is on gun owners’ side

Walter Becker sort of got it right (Letters, April 22) when he more or less said the Second Amendment applies to the militia. (The people were the militia.)

However, the Second Amendment also applies to the individual’s natural right to keep and carry arms. The evidence is all there, as any good historian can show. The problem today is the lack of integrity in those who sit on our benches and make our laws. John Hodde Colville, Wash.

Amendment applies to individuals

Walter Becker was in error in his letter of April 16 in stating that “the Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment refers to the militia, not individuals.”

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on the Second Amendment directly in only three cases, in 1886, 1894 and 1939, each of which supports the fact that the Second Amendment does indeed refer to individual ownership of firearms. A more recent case, U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990), stated that the word “people,” as used in the first, second, fourth, ninth and tenth amendments, meant the same thing throughout: individual citizens.

There are more than 20,000 federal laws, state statutes and local ordinances restricting firearm ownership in the United States. Criminals have not and will not obey these laws, nor will they obey any future laws restricting firearm ownership or possession.

The violent crime so prevalent in our nation is the result of too few and half-hearted prosecutions involving existing laws. This teaches criminals that their actions have no consequences. Until our nation’s leaders get tough on punishing criminals, the innocent will continue to pay the price for the guilty, with their right to own a firearm and with their lives. John E. Lagerquist Pullman

Precedents clearly favor gun owners

If Walter Becker had done a little research between his first and second letters concerning the Second Amendment, militias and “the people,” he might have changed his opinion.

A 1990 case, U.S. v. Verdugo Urquidez, determined: The term “the people” was explicitly used in the Second Amendment and elsewhere in the Constitution and Bill of Rights by the founding fathers to mean all individuals who make up our national community.

An 1865 case, Presser v. Illinois: “All citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserve militia …”

An 1876 case, U.S. v. Cruishank: The court said the peoples’ right to bear arms, like the rights of assembly and petition, existed long before the Constitution, and is not “in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.”

A 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller: The court said the militia is comprised of all able-bodied males, adding that “ordinarily when called, these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of a kind in common use at the time.”

The Supreme Court, as far as I know, hasn’t been presented with a case defining either “militia” or “the people” exclusively. To overturn the above cases, the court would have to disregard precedent upon which the legal profession is based.

Becker left out the part of the Second Amendment which concludes “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” If the Supreme Court gets to decide this issue, I believe they would have to declare the Brady Law, the 1968 Gun Control Act and the 1934 Gun Act unconstitutional. Dick F. Dubell Colville, Wash.

First Amendment goes for Aryans, too

Dave G. Henderson (Golden Pen letter, April 20) seems to harbor the idea that the law that allows the Aryan Nations to march is some minor local ordinance that can easily be ignored. It is, in fact, an integral part of the foundation of our nation. Allow me to quote the exact law:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

This is, of course, the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

I also find it highly ironic, and perhaps a bit hypocritical, that Henderson uses his own right to freedom of speech in order to write a letter advocating that others be stripped of their rights to freedom of speech, not to mention their rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and perhaps even their right to freedom of religion.

I wish to point out very clearly that I find the beliefs of the Aryan Nations misguided at best, and at worst, these views are probably deserving of words which I, as a Christian, would rather not use to describe a fellow human being.

However, there is nothing in the First Amendment that says people are free to speak only those things that are politically correct. David C. Fernau Spokane

APPRECIATION

So many have earned our thanks

Two years ago, on April 27, 1996, Telisha Shaver, Venus Shaver and Jade Moore were attacked by Dwayne Woods. Telisha and Jade did not survive; Venus did, but with lingering health problems.

Woods was apprehended, tried, found guilty and sentenced to death.

During the course of the investigation and trial, we learned about and met many courageous, honest and heroic people. The citizens of Spokane and the surrounding area need to know what we know about their commitment and dedication.

We know about the emergency medical professionals who came to the scene that morning and fought to keep the girls alive. We know how the doctors and nurses at Sacred Heart and Deaconess hospitals worked to save Telisha, Venus and Jade.

We are thankful for the police personnel who pursued Woods and refused to let him get away. We are thankful for the witness who came forward and told police where Woods was hiding and how they could catch him. We are thankful for the other witnesses who testified in court. We are thankful for the detectives who looked at every clue and spoke to everyone possible.

We are thankful for the Victim’s Advocates who kept us aware of situations during the investigation and held our hands during the trial. We are thankful for prosecutors Jack Driscoll and Jim Sweetser, who put together a solid case. We are thankful for Judge Michael Donahue, who presided. He was fair and compassionate.

We are thankful for the jurors, who made tough decisions in a just and fair way. We are thankful for the community support during and after this tragedy. Sherry Shaver and family Spokane