Doesn’t like senator’s vote

To the editor:

Sen. Begich,

Since I can not get through to you on your e-mail I will pass this letter on to you by newspaper.

As an American who believes in protecting the Second Amendment rights and for U.S. citizens to keep and bear arms, I urged you not to confirm Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, but you followed your party line and voted to confirm her anyway, regardless of the fact that you represent a mostly conservative state when it come to the Second Amendment.

It is extremely important that a Supreme Court justice understand and appreciate the origin and meaning of the Second Amendment, a constitutional guarantee permanently enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

Judge Sotomayor’s record on the Second Amendment causes me grave concern over her treatment of this enumerated constitutional right.

Last year, the Supreme Court decided the landmark case District of Columbia vs. Heller, holding that the Second Amendment guarantees to all law-abiding, responsible citizens the individual right to bear arms, particularly for self-defense. Following Heller, the Supreme Court is almost certain to decide next year whether the Second Amendment applies to states and local governments, as it does to the federal government.

While on the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor revealed her views on the right to keep and bear arms in Maloney vs. Cuomo, a case decided after Heller, yet holding that the Second Amendment is not a fundamental right, that it does not apply to the states. Earlier in a 2004 case, United States vs. Sanchez-Villar, Sotomayor and two colleagues perfunctorily dismissed a Second Amendment claim holding that “the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right.” Sen. Begich, imagine if such a view were expressed about other fundamental rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, such as the First, Fourth and Fifth amendments.

Heller was a 5-4 decision with some justices arguing that the Second Amendment does not apply to private citizens or that if it does, a total gun ban could be upheld if a “legitimate governmental interest” could be found. The dissenting justices also found D.C.’s absolute ban on hand guns within the home to be a “reasonable” restriction. If this had been the majority view, then any gun ban could be upheld, and the Second Amendment would be meaningless.

The Second Amendment survives today by a single vote in the Supreme Court. Both its application to the states and whether there will be a meaningfully strict standard of review remain to be decided by the high court. Judge Sotomayor has already revealed her views on these issues and I believe they are contrary to the intent and purposes of the Second Amendment and Bill of Rights. As a strong Second Amendment believer I am deeply concerned about preserving all fundamental rights for current and future generations of Americans. I strongly disagree with your vote to confirm Sotomayor to the high court.

David DeHart

Houston