Pandering to paranoia

I generally make every effort to read Mike Masterson’s columns, not because I agree with him (I rarely do), but because he is entitled to his opinion just as I am entitled to mine. However, he really has gone over the top with his exhortation to Arkansas citizens to support SJR13 regarding a state constitutional amendment concerning gun rights.

If we look at the history of legislation and judicial decisions, both nationally and statewide, can anyone honestly say that there has been any increased stringency in gun owner rights over the last 30 years save a temporary ban on the purchase of assault rifles which has since expired? This gun-owner paranoia is just that — paranoia. No one is coming to take Bubba’s deer rifle or Mary Jane’s handgun she keeps at home for self-defense.

Concerning the Arkansas Supreme Court decision he cites (State v. Buzzard, 1842), perhaps they got it right. While there is legitimate debate over the Second Amendment’s wording, a number of constitutional scholars would argue that its poor wording, punctuation and syntax may be misleading and the founding fathers did intend for guns to be for use by the militia (substitute National Guard at present). Nevertheless, the founding fathers hardly were thinking of semiautomatic assault rifles with 30-round magazines. Where are those strict constructionists when interpretations like this arise?

Finally, Mr. Masterson chooses to conveniently ignore the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution that says federal law supersedes state law. Are the Arkansas taxpayers going to be asked to pay for yet another fool’s errand challenging this as they have in the past?

PHILLIP J. PETERS

Little Rock