WASHINGTON - Seldom if ever in 25 years of column-writing have I received more mail than flowed in about my recent report that a federal appellate court in California had ruled that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is a collective, not an individual, one.

The respondents took issue not only with the decision but also with the court that reached it, and with your humble servant for saying that it amounted to a rebuke of Attorney General John Ashcroft, who earlier this year declared as federal policy that gun ownership is an individual right.

The decision by a 3-0 vote of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sharply disagreed with an earlier ruling in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court in New Orleans, which held that the defendant in a domestic violence case did have an individual right to possess a firearm.

That case did not, however, as I inaccurately indicated, uphold his right to have one while under a restraining order. As several readers reminded me via e-mail, the court reaffirmed that the government had the right, in the interest of public safety, to impose "reasonable restrictions" on the use of his gun.

One noted that the 5th Circuit had ruled "that a person under a restraining order had at least temporarily forfeited his Second Amendment rights." He went on to say, as many others did, that the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit for a long time has been regarded as "the most liberal in the nation."

Another reader went so far as to label it "the most overturned, loony court in the country." A judicial veteran tells me it is, indeed, the most overturned court, but that the Supreme Court has ruled against it only a tiny percentage of the time.

Some readers also took off after one of the 9th Circuit judges, Stephen Reinhardt, noting that he was on the panel that earlier this year ruled that the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional on grounds of church-state separation. Or, as one e-mailer put it, for trying "to take God out" of the pledge. That case remains under review by the 9th Circuit.

A number of readers argued that in the Second Amendment's language - "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" - the word "right" refers to "the people," not to "a well regulated militia."

One Internet correspondent asked: "Why would the Founding Fathers write nine amendments that apply to individuals and one - the Second - applying to individual states?"

A few others disagreed with my observation that the decision put Mr. Ashcroft in a tight corner. One noted that as attorney general he has no obligation under law or otherwise to bow to one circuit court, though its view reflects those in all but one of the other circuits.

"Ashcroft is right," a supporter on guns said, "and the libs who don't trust American citizens and hate liberty are wrong."

Among readers who targeted me was one who wrote that he was "surprised that you who benefit so strongly from the First Amendment would be so quick to allow others to chip away at the Second."

Others complained that I had quoted only two gun control advocates and nobody from the Justice Department or the National Rifle Association. The reason is that calls to each place went unreturned, as did those seeking comment for this column.

Not all of the responses were in language Mother of which would have approved.

A reader asked: "Are you a fool or a liar? ... I opt for the latter: You deceive intentionally, and bald-facedly, too." Another compared me to a quack dentist: "You're so wrong it makes my teeth hurt."

Still another message said "your blatant bias shows," and "if you had your way, the NRA and any organization that stands up for freedom would be banned." (Imagine. And me a U.S. Navy vet and former Boy Scout.)

All was not negative, however. Several readers concluded their personal diatribes by adding: "Have a nice day." I'll try to do that.

Jules Witcover writes from The Sun's Washington bureau. His column appears Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays.