To the editor:

In response to the letter to the editor by John and Linda Dacey in the Jan. 25 edition of the Portsmouth Times (“Rhode Island is rated 49th in democracy”), let’s start from the beginning: The Bill of Rights.

U.S. Constitution, 2nd Amendment, ratified Dec. 15, 1791: “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.”

Then move along to the Rhode Island Constitution, Section 22, Right to bear arms, effective in May 1843: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” (Yes, this is actually written into the Rhode Island Constitution.)

What about that? Considering that both the federal Constitution and the Rhode Island Constitution forbid the infringement of our right to keep and bear arms, I would think a vote to ban “assault rifles” would be totally unnecessary. Said vote would be unconstitutional. Maybe that’s the reason it won’t get brought to the floor.

Our forefathers put procedures in place to change our Constitution. Take a vote in Congress, then hand to the states, the repeal of the Second Amendment. When that’s done, vote to change the state Constitution. Once both constitutions no longer protect the right to bear arms, then, and only then, can you vote to ban the “assault rifle.”

And while we’re on the subject, what exactly is an “assault rifle”? The definition seems to be very subjective, changing with every person I talk to. Similar to what Justice Potter Stewart said of obscenity in 1964: “I know it when I see it.” But that can be a discussion for another day.

Ken Kossak

87 Kerr Road

Portsmouth