Coalition sues San Francisco over gun ban
Editor,
The United States Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia vs. Heller confirmed what the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms has been saying all along: The Second Amendment does indeed protect a fundamental individual right to keep and bear arms. But because Washington, D.C. is a federal enclave, the Heller ruling applies to the federal government only.

Using the Heller decision as the basis for the challenge, the Citizens Committee, in partnership with the National Rifle Association (NRA), filed on June 27 a civil rights lawsuit to confirm that the Second Amendment restricts state and local governments from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms as well.

The lawsuit was filed in federal court against the City of San Francisco and the San Francisco Public Housing Authority to invalidate the City’s ordinance (Police Code section 617) and lease provision that bans the possession of firearms in public housing.

Before the Second Amendment can be used to challenge unconstitutional laws at the state or local level, it must be “incorporated” through the Fourteenth Amendment to apply to the state and local governments. The lawsuit will serve to establish the incorporation doctrine in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, including California, and invalidate the existing ban on firearms in public housing in San Francisco in the process.

“As with the advancement of any civil right throughout history, subsequent litigation is essential in order to establish both the parameters of the Second Amendment’s protections, and initially to establish that the Second Amendment restricts state and local governments from infringing on your right to self-defense,” said Chuck Michel, civil rights attorney for the plaintiffs in the case.

Just because someone lives in public housing does not mean that person must surrender his or her civil rights, or their right of self-defense. This lawsuit seeks to restore the rights of those living in public housing to choose to own a gun for sport or to defend their families.

—Alan Gottlieb
Chairman, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Who is the judge?
Editor,
I have a question. Because I live near a school zone, the speed limit is 30 mph. But that is too slow for me. I think I should change the sign to read 50 mph. Would I be allowed to do that? 

You would probably say, "You can't do that, because you don't have the authority to change the speed limit." If I don't have the authority to change the speed limit, how do four judges presume to change the definition of marriage, which was clearly defined by the highest judge of the universe at the beginning of time, in the law book given by Him?  No one has the authority to change the definition of Holy matrimony.

I have another question. Who sets the standard of what is moral and what is immoral?  Does everyone decide what is moral for them … a kind of everyone-doing-what-is-right-in-his-own-mind? Can each one decide if stealing is right for him? Can someone say, "Well, I wouldn't rape and murder a child, but I surely uphold your right to do this?" Who has the authority to say one thing is moral and another is immoral?

The maker's handbook lists 10 rules upon which all moral laws are based. The same list that says, "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not steal" also says "Thou shalt not commit adultery." This is referring to all sexual relationships outside of marriage. And marriage was clearly defined on the first day of the creation of man. 

Now I have another question. I am confident that the people of California will vote in November to amend the state constitution so marriage can only be between and a man and woman, but I think it's terrible that this is necessary. Will we next have to amend the Constitution to say that theft, rape and murder will not be accepted here?  The Book says, "Woe to those who call good evil and evil good." One day these judges will themselves be judged by the highest authority, and I would not want to be in their shoes when that happens.

—Joanne Swanner
Tracy

A president’s judicial appointments important
Editor,
America can celebrate the United States Supreme Court’s June 26 landmark ruling preserving the Constitution’s Second Amendment — the right to bear arms.

Although this 5-4 decision is great for individual freedoms, it should have been a 9-0 decision. The Supreme Court’s duty is to interpret the Constitution, not act on individual preferences or international law. If one justice changed his vote, law-abiding citizens would have lost the right to have a gun for protection.

Whether or not we agree on one’s right to have a gun, the four liberal justices on the court are using their authority through judicial activism to advance their own agenda and make law, disregarding the intentions of the founding fathers.

Although I am happy about the decision to preserve the Second Amendment, I am disappointed in Justice Anthony Kennedy’s other decisions that aligned him with the liberal wing of the court. Justice Kennedy voted to grant terrorists constitutional rights and allow thugs who commit horrible crimes to avoid the death penalty because a death did not occur. 

The will of the people and our Constitution is being undermined and changed by activist liberal judges. We can change these types of rulings in the November election.

When determining the next president, keep in mind their judicial appointment philosophy. Senator Barack Obama has already stated he will appoint the same type of radical justices that fit in the liberal wing on the courts. With a majority of Democrats in the Senate, there is nothing to stop him. Senator John McCain has vowed to appoint justices that will interpret the Constitution and not use personal feelings to determine law. In my opinion, judges should strive to do just that.

—Frank Aquila
Manteca