Readers React: Sorry, Gavin Newsom -- the Constitution is clear on gun rights

To the editor: I am distressed by the comments of Adam Winkler on Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom’s attempt to restrict ammunition sales and large-capacity magazine ownership in California. Winkler appears to evaluate the acceptability of gun control laws on the basis of whether they will work upon implementation. (“Why Gavin Newsom’s gun law won’t help,” Opinion, April 8)

It should not matter to anyone if a gun control law can or cannot reduce crime perpetrated by the use of a gun. The courts and Winkler should be interested in whether or not a gun control law violates the constitutional ban on infringement upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Those who oppose the 2nd Amendment should be working to repeal it; not to seek acceptance for statutes which reduce gun crimes by infringing upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

If the American people want constitutional law, they must support constitutional law — even when it means opposing laws they like but are in violation of the Constitution.

Herbert C. Haber, Northridge

..

To the editor: Doesn’t Winkler, who thinks it’s fine to extend background checks to ammunition buyers, understand that making bullets at home is cheap and easy?

Newsom will need to control the sales of reloading machines, empty brass shell casings, gunpowder, wadding and slugs or buckshot to regulate the possession of ammunition. Many, forced to reload their own bullets, will set up their own black market business.

Furthermore, much of the ammunition for handguns in California is sold in bags of 50 or 25 rounds by gun ranges. Getting a response on a background check can take as long as 10 days from the federal government. Again, a black market will ooze like a fungus out of the woodwork of a bad law.

Rob Reisig, Yorba Linda

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook