Bill of Rights refers to individuals’ freedoms

In his Jan. 10 letter, Jeremy Brigham maintained the Second Amendment was written for the benefit of the state, not the individual. His viewpoint was contradicted by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. circuit several years ago when it ruled against D.C.'s handgun ban. The Washington gun-grabbers used the same fuzzy philosophy trotted out by the writer. The court called that argument “strained.” It continued that the court found it “ ... passing strange that the able lawyers and statesmen in the first Congress would have expressed sole concern for state militias.”

Now, the U.S. Supreme Court has echoed that determination. Brigham feels it would have been wiser for them to interpret the amendment as a state's right. That's called “legislating from the bench.” The job of any court is to determine the intent of lawmakers.

The term “the people” appears throughout the Bill of Rights. Whether referring to speech, press, assembly, religion, firearms ownership, etc., it means the same thing: an individual right of citizens. Would Brigham claim freedom of speech is a right reserved for the states? I think not.

Dean Varner

Cedar Rapids