To the Editor,

The Herald’s May 30th editorial headlined, “A win for common sense gun laws,” displays a remarkable misunderstanding of the Second Amendment, while its contention that the bill passed by the House and now headed to the Senate is an example of “common sense” is simply ignorant and wrong. 

Historically, our government and our courts have accepted as constitutional that gun owners can use their guns for several reasons, to include: as members of the militia, defined by the Founding Fathers as all able bodied male citizens age 17-45, to help defend our country or to prevent another King George-like tyranny; for hunting; for sportsmanship such as target shooting and clay pigeon shooting; and, perhaps most important, for protecting one's self and family from criminal attack and from home invasion.

The bill ballyhooed by the Warwick Beacon (and the company’s other two newspapers, the Cranston Herald and Johnston SunRise) and other gun control advocates takes away the most essential reason for constitutionally owning a gun — self defense. A gun cannot be used for self defense or to protect a family member if it cannot be quickly accessed. Thus, the bill is most likely unconstitutional because it takes away the most important reason for gun ownership.

The bill totally ignores the plain language of the Second Amendment's phrase, "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” While the bill would not take away the "right to keep...arms," it would deprive gun owners of “the right to ... bear arms.” One cannot bear a gun if it is unaccessible.

The Beacon's editorial is rife with false logic. First, the existing gun storage law that severely penalizes gun owners who allow guns to be accessed by children or others who might harm themselves or others is working. Statistics show that most who use guns for suicide or to injure others are the actual owners who had access to their guns even if locked. Clearly, homes with children or the mentally disturbed should not have guns that are accessible and, since death or injuries among those groups are so rare, the current law is working. There have been exceptions, of course. But regardless of how stringent and largely unenforceable any law is, there will always be exceptions. If there weren't, we would be living in a perfect, crime free world.

The worst part of the proposed law, however, is that it would force gun owners in homes occupied only by one or two responsible adults — a husband and wife, for example — to keep self-defense guns locked and unaccessible for their intended purpose even when both have authorized access to the guns.

The Beacon contends the “... legislation will do nothing to harm gun owners who already do the right thing by keeping their guns away from those who should not have it.” The vast majority of gun owners do exactly that--they keep their guns away from those who should not have them. They lock their guns away when children or others who shouldn't have access to guns are in the house. The harm the bill will bring to them is that they will not have access to their guns when they need them the most.

The Beacon editorial ends with this: “If it (the proposed gun storage bill) saves even one life by being enacted, it is more than worth it.” Would the Beacon advocate emasculating the First Amendment by making street protests illegal if it will “save even one life?” How about canceling the Fourth Amendment and allowing the government to conduct no-warrant, no probable cause searches of homes if it will “save even one life?”

While the educational and warning provisions of the bill have merit, the universal locked storage piece makes no sense. To say it does is illogical and incomprehensible.

I've always been a fan of the Beacon because it almost always promotes common sense. To promote this bill, the Beacon uses Orwellian “newspeak” to dub something “common sense” that makes no sense.

It gives me second thoughts, as it should all Beacon readers.

Lonnie Barham,
of Warwick