Guns and the Constitution in the District

I am grateful to the Cato Institute and to the six District residents who fought for the right of law-abiding citizens to own handguns for protection against the predations of criminals ["D.C.'s Ban on Handguns in Homes Is Thrown Out," front page, March 10].

The editorial "Dangerous Ruling" [March 10] called this struggle to preserve the fundamental right of self-defense an "unconscionable campaign" and said that "more guns mean only more violence." The editorial made several emotionally charged assertions, and it disregarded the following critical facts associated with the issue of gun control:

· The Second Amendment says that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Every time the word "people" is used in the Bill of Rights it refers to an individual right. The assertion that the Second Amendment was not intended to apply to individuals is unsupportable by either linguistic logic or historical analysis.

· States that have liberalized their handgun-ownership laws have experienced a drop in violent crime, and in most cases that drop has been precipitous.

· The jurisdictions with the strictest gun control laws in the country have the highest rates of violent crime.

Taken individually, each of these facts is convincing. In the aggregate they constitute an overwhelming argument in support of the March 9 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

As a law-abiding citizen concerned about my family's safety, I will be very happy when the District's irrational gun control laws meet their timely end.

ROBERT H. BRAUNOHLER