Letters to the Editor: California's assault weapons ban is overturned by a judge's lazy reasoning

To the editor: In finding the California assault weapons ban unconstitutional based in part on the lack of a "national tradition,” U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez displays his intellectual laziness.

This substitute for jurisprudence by applying a modern government interest to a test of the attitudes of the late 1700s shows that this judge doesn’t want to do the work.

This work requires an expansive mind to carefully consider the facets of a modern society, the broad range of interests of all stakeholders, and a fair application of justice for the broader social well-being.

There are historical traditions of gun control laws that have worked; the judge just needs to look at them. Benitez is either too narrow-minded to serve as a judge or he is just shirking his responsibility to the law.

Michael Krubiner, Valley Village

..

To the editor: In what hellish mind can an AR-15 be considered a common household item? Will I find a Howitzer in my kitchen drawer along with spoons and forks? Why not a Sherman tank in the driveway?

Frightened civilians with AR-15 rifles are not the equals of soldiers in battle. We must never allow public access to such weapons.

Mary Ross, Cambria

..

To the editor: If Benitez's ruling stands, how many Californians will be killed as a direct result? How many would he deem acceptable?

Greg Cahill, Culver City

This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.