Letter: Regulations That Protect

To the Editor:

After the latest gun tragedy I once again hear gun-rights advocates rejecting the comparison of government regulation of guns with the regulation of automobile ownership and use. Their argument is that the right to bear arms is constitutionally protected, while the right to drive automobiles is not.

This argument is quite wrong. Many rights protected by the Constitution are so fundamental that the drafters of the Constitution saw no need to mention them. The list would be too long. It would include the right to marry, to bear children, to go to school, to build a home, and, of course, the right to freedom of movement, whether by horse, boat or automobile. Moreover, unlike the right to keep and bear arms, which is protected due to the necessity of maintaining “a well regulated militia,” these many unnamed but inherent constitutional rights are not limited by context and are therefore more broadly protected than the right to bear arms.

I own and use both automobiles and guns. I value my constitutional rights to both, and I strongly support laws and regulations of both that protect my family and the population of this nation from the danger of the abuse of these rights.

Andrew Stewart