Letter to the Editor

With Washington state enforcing a new gun-control law which is known as I-1639, many residents of Battle Ground have disliked the enforcement of this new law. I-1639 is a law that was already placed in effect that puts different kinds of restrictions on gun rights. Some of the restrictions state that anyone who is under the age of 21 is not allowed to buy any semi-automatic assault rifles. You must also go through some background checks before you can purchase any firearm. Many residents of Battle Ground have established a meeting in Kiwanis Park in opposition to this new law.

Joey Gibson, who is the founder of Patriot Prayer, was leading the rally at Kiwanis Park. He stated that he believes that Battle Ground is home to many passionate gun owners in Clark County. Along with many other residents of Battle Ground, he believes that this new law is cutting short their rights as gun owners. They say that this is also a threat to the second amendment. Many who had gathered at the rally at Kiwanis Park were armed with different firearms from assault rifles to handguns.

This new law has been a big concern for many gun owners in Battle Ground along with many other residents of Washington. I think that this new law tends to be a threat to the second amendment and the rights of gun owners. With this new law coming, gun owners will start to feel like they are insecure and they are being neglected by the local government. I think that every person has a right to bear arms and that right should not be taken away from them or controlled by the government. I think I-1639 is an unconstitutional law and it should be removed. I think that Reflector should be more supportive of the second amendment and protecting gun owners’ rights.

Thank you for taking the time to read my letter.

Recommended for you

(1) comment


Mr. Bliznyuk, here's the Second Amendment to our sacred Constitution:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

This text does not give the right to possess, fire, brandish, gift, exchange, modify, sell nor buy any firearm, anywhere, anytime.

The first part is telling: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." When was the last time a legally constituted militia, not just a bunch of buddies with a grievance, was called up, say, in Washington State? In the 19th century? This is a question for the Clark County Historical Society.

Here's the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Does this mean a person can speak or publish anything, anywhere, any time? I think not.

Making threats can get a person into a world of trouble.

Publishing copyright protected material can result in enough lawsuits to put a dozen lawyers to work.

Does the First Amendment mean recent protests should not have been controlled? Law enforcement can, and does, place limits on assembly, within Constitutional bounds. They wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't. If they overstep, as some have, they must be held to account, for the good of our country. The same principle applies to protestors.

If I sound passionate, it's because the Constitution is my Holy Scripture. The Founders were Apostles.

Please tell me what you think of my reasoning.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.