Letters to the editor Dec. 4

Disagrees

I am responding to the letter by Molly Worden-Cockrell “Taking advantage of women.”

Personally, I do not agree. I have been a widow for nearly three years and have had to deal with everything she wrote about. And, I have had no problems. None.

Adults, no matter what age or gender, deal with vehicle and home improvement issues.

— Mary Adkins Meister, Kalispell

Magazine ban

“Court Upholds California ban on high capacity magazines,” Dec. 1, Daily Inter Lake. Carefully reading this article, I find these three points that the court used to uphold the ban.

Since the ban only restricts an individual right a little bit then its not unconstitutional.

There is no evidence that anyone ever has been unable to defend his or her home and family due to the lack of a large-capacity magazine.

And a magazine ban saves lives.

These three points are totally without merit. A small infraction on an individual right is still an infringement.

The court is saying that the state has the right to determine how you can defend yourself and if you don’t need more than 10 rounds (based on their unsubstantiated assumption) then the state can prohibit you from having more than a 10 round magazine. So the state can now determine what we need or don’t need regarding self-defense.

There are no studies that show that a magazine ban saves lives. That is just an unsubstantiated assumption. Even if a magazine ban may save a life here and there, that is no justification for taking away an individual’s rights when they have not committed a crime or harmed anyone. This is called prior restraint of the Second Amendment.

The 9th circuit court has determined that it is OK to take away law abiding people’s rights if it is only a small infringement, and the state says that’s OK because we have determined nobody really needs that anyway, and we say it may save lives although we have no evidence to back that up. This decision will go to the Supreme Court and will be overturned.

— William Fry, Kalispell