Weather Forecast


Letter: DA's column is off base

Dear Editor,

This is in response to last week's guest column titled "DA argues for 'meaningful' gun restrictions." District Attorney Eric Johnson's public advocacy to restrict the rights and liberties of the citizens he's charged to serve, stands in opposition to the letter and spirit of our constitution, and to the oath he has sworn to uphold.

Mr. Johnson presumes to know the intent of the authors of the second amendment; not by research into the definitions of the words in the text, but something less tangible, Johnson: "It's hard to imagine that Thomas Jefferson and James Madison...would disagree with background checks, registration and limits..." He also imagines that: "The founders of our country and writers of the constitution did not create the second amendment to prevent reasonable restrictions...." Twelve times he uses repressive terms such as "banning," "limiting," "checks," "control," "restrictions", etc., as being compatible with our founder's intent.

The second amendment concludes with these clear and unambiguous words: "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." My dictionaries define "infringed" as: "to frustrate; to hinder; to trespass; to violate: to encroach upon in a way that violates the rights of another." And fittingly, from Webster's 1828 Dictionary: "A prince (government official) infringes an agreement or doing what is stipulated not to be done."

District Attorney Eric Johnson's first and foremost duty is to secure rights, not advocate for their restriction. "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them" (Miranda vs. Arizona).