Letters to the editor Nov. 30

No lies, no fraud

Many Historian perspectives of the Second Amendment veer far from a statement made in a letter to the editor on Nov. 15 which accuses Supreme Court Justice Amy Barrett of committing a “noble lie.”

The author’s statement that “there is no indication that the framers ever intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in that amendment or elsewhere in our Constitution” is in disagreement with many historians.

Pennsylvania’s and Vermont’s state constitutions in the late 1770s asserted that “the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves.” In the Commentaries on the Laws of England, William Blackstone wrote “...having arms for their defence...of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation...” The framers were well aware of the rights of the people to bear arms for their personal defense because they had lived it and the meaning was accepted as a long-held assumption.

Justice Warren Burger’s remarks of “fraud” in the letter were not backed by facts but an opinion about the “propaganda from the NRA.” Justice Burger was considered by historians as a progressive justice who was not a fan of a static constitution.

Therefore, it would seem more accurate to accept that there are many facts, differing interpretations and opinions, no “noble lies,” no lies or fraud at all by Justice Amy Barrett.

—Barbara Levitt, Kalispell

Second Amendment cases

I must respond to the opinion piece from Nov. 15 about the Second Amendment.

The author says that the Second Amendment does not grant an individual the right to keep and bear arms. All the enlightened opinions that I have read say that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to keep and bear arms. Two recent Supreme Court cases have also affirmed this:

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), U.S. Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia’s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept “unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock” violated this guarantee.

McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to “keep and bear arms,” as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by either the Due Process Clause or Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and is thereby enforceable against the states.

Judge Barrett’s dissent in the case of Kanter v. Barr, a Second Amendment case in which Rickey Kanter, a convicted felon in Wisconsin, contended his crime should not disqualify him from owning a firearm. Kanter pleaded guilty to a single count of mail fraud in 2011, a non-violent felony. He completed his prison sentence, paid restitution and applied to the attorney general for relief from disability to regain his Second Amendment rights.

Judge Barrett’s dissent applies to this one man not all felons. She did not call the law unconstitutional, she said as applied to Kanter it is unconstitutional.

The author of the letter has his own opinions about the Second Amendment, but the Supreme Court disagrees. His mischaracterization of Amy Barrett’s decision in Kanter v. Barr is not factual and is a slander to her reputation.

—William Fry, Kalispell

Indigenous People’s Day

“Destiny is the scapegoat which we make responsible for all our crimes and follies; a necessity which we set down invincible when we have no wish to strive against it.” Alexander Belfour (1767-1829), Scottish novelist. In 1296 English invaded Scotland, and two wars resulted. Scotland gained their independence, more or less.

It is not remarkable that Belfour wrote the quote above. To my mind, he is writing with the past English occupation.

Let’s consider now the mind of the Indigenous of the New World in relation to the quote above. Could they write the same of white Europeans? In my thoughts this quote applies exactly with the opinions of many Americans, and many Montanans.

My point of this long introduction is to state my support for a Indigenous Day state holiday in Montana. Shane Morigeau (36) who is a member of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, introduced such a bill in February 2019 in the Montana House where it passed 62 to 35. It didn’t pass in the Senate Committee though.

The potential cost was used as a pretense for its failure, but the quote above is no doubt applicable once again. In 52 days the legislative session is starting which can do the correct thing, of which South Dakota and Idaho have already done.

Six percent of our state might appreciate the respect. We must address our divisions, so amplified this year. And let’s not celebrate a lost, and devious white man.

I spent years in an adjoining state which has actively tried to prevent the Indigenous, how have thousands of years here, from being part of our democracy. That shouldn’t happen in my home state, as it shouldn’t anywhere. Please support this idea, and let’s make it happen.

—Erwin Curry, Missoula