Rob Arrigo in his letter ("Bearing arms is our right," Jan. 9) asserts that under the Second Amendment "no constitutional basis exists that can be used to argue gun control is legal."
The Supreme Court disagrees. In its 2008 Heller decision, the court upheld a limited Second Amendment right to gun ownership.
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the court, explained: "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited ... nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. ...We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive."
Justice Scalia also explained that, consistent with the Second Amendment, individual ownership of "dangerous and unusual" firearms, such as M-16 rifles, can be banned.
So, under this Supreme Court ruling, laws banning military-style assault weapons, extended magazines, cop-killer bullets and requiring universal background checks would likely all be permitted under the Second Amendment. Most gun owners I know see no legitimate need for such exotic weapons or ammunition and want prospective gun owners to be carefully screened.
Thanks to the Times Union for keeping this issue in the forefront. At long last, after Newtown, steps must be taken to curb the obscene levels of gun violence. Reasonable gun control, consistent with Second Amendment rights, must be on the table.
RICHARD E. CASAGRANDE
Slingerlands