Letters to the editor: Background checks; 2nd Amendment; Art City
Need better background checks
I have some questions. How many of the shooters in the last 3 or 4 years were women? How many of the men were under 50 years old? How many were under 25? My guess is a very high percentage has been 17 to 22.
Wouldn’t it make sense then for the background check on a young man under 25 be flagged for extra some more intense checks? Like history of purchases of arms and ammunition? Then, perhaps an interview to determine what use of firearms this person has?
Just some simple commonsense questions that should be answered by whomever is doing the background checks. We don’t need more laws concerning guns, what we need is to thoroughly check up on that very small percentage of the population that has been doing the shooting.
Karl Jakel, Ventura
What Second Amendment says
Re: Dane F. Baylis’ July 8 letter, “Claims are simply cherry picking”:
This letter begins with the argument that the Militia Act of 1903, which brought all state militias under the federal umbrella of a National Guard, did not include any statement, or even imply, that there is a right of citizens to arm themselves outside of the support of a legally constructed and recognized body under government control.
Of course, there was no such provision. The Militia Act merely codified the circumstances under which the National Guard could be federalized and also provided federal funding of the National Guard. The Militia Act did not revoke the Second Amendment. Its mention in the letter is puzzling.
Those who want more restrictions on gun ownership would like the Second Amendment to simply state, “The right of the National Guard to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
But it does not.
The Second Amendment makes a clear reference to the right of the “people.” Who are the “people”? In the case The United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez in 1990, the Supreme Court ruled that “the people” refers to those persons who are part of the national community of the United States and also stated that the definition of “the people” applies consistently throughout the Bill of Rights.
Those who claim that the Second Amendment applies only to the National Guard shall first have to explain why the “people” mentioned therein are different than the “people” in the First, Fourth, Ninth, and 10th Amendments.
William Vietinghoff, Thousand Oaks
Ventura must keep Art City
The city of Ventura will lose a great asset, unless steps are taken to keep Art City. A recent editorial in The Star quoted artist Caroline PM Jones, who has had studios across Asia and Europe. “In all my travels,” she writes, “the only place that has come close to what can be found at Art City are the famous and culturally protected studios at Pietrasanta in Italy.”
Michelangelo admired the stone at Pietrasanta. Supporting, and preserving Art City would be a win-win for the artists, and the citizens who live and work here. If the city of Ventura cannot help to keep Art City where it is, it would be a great financial decision to allow the artists to continue working on city-owned property. There is plenty of undeveloped space at the Community Park and Aquatic Park.
Carol Brock, Ventura
This article originally appeared on Ventura County Star: Letters: Background checks; 2nd Amendment; Art City
