Become a digitalPLUS subscriber. 99¢ for 4 weeks.
News Opinion Readers Respond

Constitutional rights are not unrestricted

In his letter opposing reasonable gun control, Doug McNeil asserts that the government cannot require a license or fingerprints as a condition of gun ownership because gun ownership is a constitutional right ("Gun licensing won't reduce crime," March 3). But both requirements are routinely imposed on the exercise of other constitutional rights.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that marriage is a fundamental right. Yet, as everyone who has ever been married in this country knows, every state requires that couples obtain a marriage license before they can marry. Similarly, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that there is a fundamental right to have and raise children. As an adoptive parent, I can tell you that the state requires couples to be fingerprinted and submit to an FBI background check before they are approved for adoption.

Opponents of gun control are entitled to their opinions and to their arguments. They are not, however, entitled to their own facts. Let us put to rest the falsehood that the government can place no restrictions on the exercise of a constitutional right. If the government can do so for marriage and having children, there is no sound reason why it cannot do so for gun ownership. Indeed, the Supreme Court, in affirming that the Second Amendment creates an individual right to own guns, explicitly stated that the government can indeed impose reasonable restrictions on the exercise of that right.

Sheldon H. Laskin

  • Text NEWS to 70701 to get Baltimore Sun local news text alerts
  • Copyright © 2014, The Baltimore Sun
    Related Content
    • Maryland's gun law is working
      Maryland's gun law is working

      The gun lobby's lawsuit against Maryland's life-saving Firearm Safety Act described in Saturday's front page article does not challenge the constitutionality of the key provision of the act — requiring handgun purchasers to first obtain a fingerprint based background check and license...

    • Md. gun law is working [Letter]
      Md. gun law is working [Letter]

      Jack Mccauley's letter belittling the Firearms Safety Act fails to mention the most important parts of the new law — the requirement that handgun purchasers get a fingerprint-based license and the authority for the state police to regulate firearms dealers ("O'Malley, Brown are kidding...

    • Gun law doesn't make Marylanders safer [Letter]
      Gun law doesn't make Marylanders safer [Letter]

      Lt. Gov. Anthony Brown's recent commentary on Maryland's 2013 Firearms Safety Act is disingenuous and deceitful ("Brown: I will enforce gun safety law," Oct. 2).

    • A wasteful death by Uzi [Letter]

      Though I seriously doubt it, I wonder if a gun advocate or a member of National Rifle Association could explain to me why a 9-year-old girl needs weapons training ("An Uzi, a 9-year-old and American exceptionalism," Aug. 31). When I first read about the 9-year-old girl who had accidentally...

    • The city's problem isn't guns, it's gangs [Letter]
      The city's problem isn't guns, it's gangs [Letter]

      While I agree with letter writer Pat Ranney that Baltimore has a serious gun violence problem, she is incorrectly placing blame on an inanimate object. Guns don't pull the trigger, people do ("Baltimore's violence won't end until we stand up to the gun lobby," Aug. 14).

    • Judge's decision on Md. assault weapons ban makes no one safer [Letter]
      Judge's decision on Md. assault weapons ban makes no one safer [Letter]

      U.S. District Judge Catherine Blake's decision upholding Maryland's assault weapons ban isn't a victory for anyone ("A victory for public safety," Aug. 14).

    Comments
    Loading