Nobody can define an “assault rifle” any more than an “assault hammer?” One must define what you want to control. If any device can be technically described, it would be a firearm and the implements intended to increase firearm efficiency. Every aspect and function can be clearly described, and therefore any aspect or function can be subject to legal restriction.
Already certain firearm capabilities are subject to strict controls, e.g., fully automatic weapons. As a private citizen, you may still own a “machine gun;” however, you are subject to strict restrictions intended to protect the public from physical harm and taxpayer expense often incurred to care for those harmed. Would it not be relatively simple to clearly describe the technical features of modern firearms and accessories that will require similar restrictions for ownership?
Also, I agree with the premise of Larry Cohn’s letter suggesting that the legal concept of “strict liability” now be applied to certain firearms. This concept is what exposed the tobacco industry to liability when it was proven beyond reasonable doubt that using tobacco as intended often leads to serious harm and public expense.
Don’t firearms specifically designed for a battlefield application, when used as intended by design, serve the primary purpose of killing human beings? Therefore, what is the difference between the consequence of the intended use between tobacco and certain firearms? Lastly, the constitutional right to “bear arms” is not superior to the “right to peacefully assemble.”
— Lynn Willis
Eagle River
Have something on your mind? Send to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Letters under 200 words have the best chance of being published. Writers should disclose any personal or professional connections with the subjects of their letters. Letters are edited for accuracy, clarity and length.