Letter: Reader surprised, disappointed by recent article about gun laws

Feb. 13, 2013 @ 11:41 PM

Editor:

I was both surprised and disappointed by the recent article headlined “New Laws Create Dilemma for Officers.”

The surprise was that you did feature Sheriff Seals’ comments — all supportive of the state and federal constitutions — while indirectly managing to denigrate Steve Osborn’s open letter (published as an advertisement in The Mountain Press) to Sheriff Seals. Osborn’s words, like those of Seals, were supportive of constitutional law.

Had the Mountain Press decided to interview Osborn, the reporter would have found that Osborn had served as a police officer before resigning — much more relevant to the firearms discussion than your choice of styling him as a “Tea-Party activist.” Had the MP omitted those three words — “Tea-Party activist” — you would have had a story with three law-enforcement professionals speaking, all with somewhat different views.

According to the Mack/Printz vs. USA (Supreme Court, 1997) sheriffs have the authority to oppose unconstitutional laws; and many sheriffs are already standing up to this potential federal infringement via executive order from the White House.

Bill Dayton’s comments were disappointing and inaccurate. The NRA’s history and purpose were completely misinterpreted. Dayton did not do his homework on that subject.

Attackers having to reload, with a restricted magazine capacity, before shooting again. I actually did a double-take on that one! Would criminals really worry about the lawful magazine capacity when they are murdering people? The Mountain Press should have allowed Dayton to edit his own comment before publication.

“The extended magazines are something people don’t need,” Dayton said. The 2nd Amendment emphasizes a “right,” not a “need.”

Rob Bremer

Gatlinburg