Letters: Toomey wrong about assault weapons ban

ISSUE | TERROR IN ORLANDO

Toomey wrong about weapons ban

Sen. Patrick Toomey (R., Pa.) contends that bans on entire classes of commonly owned firearms prevent law-abiding Americans from exercising their constitutional rights ("Prevent more senseless deaths," Sunday). Anyone familiar with the history of the 1994 federal assault-weapons ban, however, knows this contention to be inaccurate.

Prior to its expiration in 2004, the constitutionality of the ban was challenged in five court proceedings and was rejected in each. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court acknowledged that the Second Amendment right of individuals to keep and bear arms is not unlimited and cited the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons."

After the Heller decision, the District of Columbia enacted an assault-weapons ban in the interest of public safety, which was held constitutional by a federal appeals court. The ban includes semiautomatic rifles.

These judicial pronouncements appear to contradict Toomey's expansive view of the scope of the Second Amendment.

|Patrick J. Hagan, Ardmore

Start with fixing terrorist watch list

I agree with President Obama that it's absurd that a person can be put on the federal terrorist watch list and "no fly" list but can't be put on a "no buy" list that would prevent him or her from buying a gun.

The problem is that the terrorist watch list, and the process of getting people's names on and off it, were never designed with the appropriate checks and balances that any such law should have. It has been clear since it was instituted in 2003 that people need a way to challenge their inclusion on the list.

If we're going to use the list to affect people's rights, let's make sure the list is properly grounded in the Constitution.

|Richmond L. Gardner, Horsham

Stop selling assault weapons

The gun dealer who sold the assault rifle to the Orlando killer said, "It's horrible, but I don't make the laws; I abide by them," and "I did everything by the book." Unfortunately, going by the book meant the gun dealer did nothing right.

CVS Pharmacy wasn't doing anything illegal when it sold cigarettes, but its management made the moral decision to stop selling them.

All responsible gun dealers can, should, and must make the moral decision to stop selling assault weapons. That would do nothing to the Second Amendment, and we would not need to wait for Republicans and the obstructionist Congress to pass any laws.

|Adina Lambert, Philadelphia, alamb910@aol.com

Imagine armed Eagles fans

A letter writer wrote, "I'd rather have armed, law-abiding citizens everywhere I go so there's at least a chance of fighting back" ("Give me protection," Thursday). This is thinking directly from the National Rifle Association's manual.

Imagine going to a movie, the Academy of Music, or an Eagles game where everyone is armed. Who would put himself or herself in such a situation? Who would trust thousands of armed fans at a sporting event?

Why don't people understand that when everyone is armed, no one is safe? Yet that seems to be the direction we are heading.

|Tom Sexton, Hollywood, Tom_Sexton@hotmail.com

Speak up to combat hatred

The support offered in response to the Orlando massacre is hopeful. How can this support help those who are targeted feel safer?

Being "different" and being bullied starts at a very young age and continues throughout adulthood. The next time you hear someone make a racist or homophobic remark or "joke" or snicker at someone who is transgender, speak up. Even if it makes you uncomfortable, if you truly want to stand with those who are "different," say something. When you do not say anything, your silence is considered agreement with what is being said.

Hate-fueled tragedies do not happen in a vacuum.

We either challenge hate, or we let it grow.

|Anne Denner, Philadelphia, annedenner908@gmail.com