A case of judicial activism

To the editor:

A first-year student of logic would understand that if the purpose for an amendment is to permit all citizens to "keep and bear arms," the amendment would say clearly and simply: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." A first-year student of logic would also understand, however, that if the purpose for the "right" to "keep and bear arms" is limited in some fashion, that limitation would be found in a qualifying statement in the same amendment. The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution includes this limitation. It says: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The prefatory statement makes clear that the "right" to "keep and bear arms" is a "right" only when in the service of a "well-regulated militia."

Recently the U.S. Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision ruled that there was no limitation on the individual's "right" to "bear arms," but in doing so, five of the judges were guilty of disregarding the "well-regulated militia" statement, which clearly and specifically limits the conditions under which the individual has a "right" to "bear arms." The decision by those five judges is, then, a perfect example of a judicial decision based on a personal and political agenda rather than on a logical and fair reading of the U.S. Constitution.

JOHN C. BIERK, Cape Girardeau