To the Editor:
In her note, "Prying the Second Amendment's Meaning from the Founders' Cold Dead Hands" (June 2006), Sarah Kaltsounis treats the Second Amendment as if it was written: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." There are many examples that illustrate her mind-set, but a simple one is her statement, "There doesn't seem to be any indication that the framers intended to grant this right to women, who were completely excluded from all historical definitions of Ômilitia.'"
Ms. Kaltsounis has failed in the most elemental way to interpret the Second Amendment the way it was written which is: "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 founders would recognize women as belonging to the PEOPLE (although at the time, only free white women likely) and as a challenge I ask anyone to show an example of a gun control law passed by Congress or the state legislatures prior to 1900 which specifically excluded women from owning firearms.
The subordinate clause in the Second Amendment is giving the founders' view of an important reason for the PEOPLE to have the right to arms. Consistent with that view, as Ms. Kaltsounis observes, Congress passed laws requiring members of the militia (defined for practical purposes as white males of a certain age) to arm themselves. However, Congress cannot define the PEOPLE and didn't. More-over, certain people are excluded from membership in the militia (specifically, some members of the government and clergy) and no one would imagine these PEOPLE could be disarmed.
So, before anyone races to join her legal test case to see "what role we play in the 'well-regulated militia,'" you should understand that you do not have to play any militia role to avail yourself of your rights protected by the Second Amendment - you have only to belong to the PEOPLE of the United States of America.
Philip F. Lee
Silver Spring, Maryland
Editor's Note: Ms. Kaltsounis's article was intended to highlight the manner in which recent courts have interpreted the Second Amendment by relying upon the former and current federal militia statutes. She was not advocating or endorsing any particular viewpoint.
To the Editor:
It is with a growing apprehension that I continue to read the Bar Bulletin every month. Articles that provide real information without political slant are becoming rare. Most, if not all articles that do present a political position take the position of the political left, with no balancing opinion. The June 2006 issue is a prime example. Articles therein discuss the WLAD, the 2nd amendment, and other issues. All are slanted towards the point of view of the Democratic Party and/or the political left. Further examples include a page 3 article that attacks those who have legally challenged the WLAD (with no counterbalancing point of view), and a page 21 article that discusses the 22nd amendment's limit of two terms per president with a thinly veiled jab at the current president.
The political slant of the Bar Bulletin only makes clearer the new goal of our King County Bar Association: to become a political entity driven to support only one political party. In doing so, the KCBA is disregarding a significant number of its members. This goal was made even clearer earlier this year with the adoption of an "official" position by the KCBA that endorsed same-sex marriage, a position that the Board must have known would polarize the KCBA membership.
The KCBA has abandoned King County lawyers that do not agree with its political ideals. This is unfortunate and unfair to that group, even if we may be a minority. A county bar association should be an organization that works on issues affecting lawyers with support by a consensus of its members. That the KCBA, and the Bar Bulletin, have decided to simply ignore other points of view in their positioning is reprehensible. It is oxymoronic to celebrate a law that supposedly ends discrimination by publishing an issue that is entirely one-sided and does not even acknowledge that other points of view exist.
Please make the Bar Bulletin a more balanced publication that understands that there are good, skilled, successful attorneys in King County that respectfully disagree with left-wing political positions. Thank you.
Justin D. Park
Romero Montague, P.S.
Bellevue
Editor's Note: The Bar Bulletin editor sends out a monthly email to some 250 persons who have contributed articles in the past or have expressed an interest in contributing. The editor, the chair of the Bar Bulletin Committee and others (at their request) also will frequently solicit particular articles from particular persons, such as the Debate piece on same-sex marriage in the January 2006 issue. For the most part, however, articles are submitted to the editor by persons who volunteer to do so after receiving his monthly email. Such was the case in June with three of the four articles mentioned by Mr. Park. The editor wrote the article on the 22nd Amendment. In the past year, only one article submitted for publication has been rejected and only then after consultation with the chair of the Bar Bulletin Committee and the executive director of the KCBA. Mr. Park is now on the editor's email list and is free to contribute an article at any time on the topic of the month. The Bar Bulletin Committee chair also extends her invitation to Mr. Park to join the committee. Her email address and telephone number appear elsewhere in this issue.
G.B.
