Less, not more, gun regulations needed

To the editor:

Regarding Jeremy Brigham's Dec. 31 letter 'Our society needs more gun regulation”:

His letter mischaracterizes the Supreme Court's 2nd Amendment jurisprudence. In D.C. v. Heller, the 2010 case Brigham references, the court analyzed the militia phrase of the 2nd Amendment in great detail. After that analysis, the court concluded that in 1791, when the militia was called into service, its members used the firearms that they possessed individually. Therefore, without the right of an individual to possess a firearm, there would be no militia.

Hence, the 2nd Amendment recognizes an individual's right to bear arms for lawful purposes. Furthermore, the only right D.C. v. Heller recognized was the right of an individual to possess a handgun in his home for the purpose of self-defense.

On Brigham's broader point of needing more gun regulation, would blacks in Ferguson, Mo., like the government to have more control over guns? How about the people of North Korea or any other totalitarian regime? In 2014, how many lives did guns save, either through deterrence or the rightful self-defense shootings of would-be criminals? Individuals possessing firearms help keep government in its place and criminals from doing harm. The kinds of people who use guns to wrongfully kill are not the ones who would worry about complying with stricter gun regulations. Meaning that under a stricter regulatory scheme, law-abiding citizens would have fewer and less powerful guns while criminals would have more guns with greater capabilities. What we need are fewer gun regulations, not more.

Peter Stiefel

Victor