Q:  Can you explain in layman’s terms why the Second Amendment’s language “a well regulated militia, being necessary…” seems to be ignored in gun control legislation and court decisions?  

K.W., Torrance

A: The Second Amendment reads as follows:  “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 Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the Bill of Rights. In 2008 and in 2010, the United States Supreme Court made two Second Amendment rulings:  District of Columbia v Heller (2008), where the Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in the militia, and to utilize that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes (eg., self defense within one’s home); however, in dicta (not the ruling itself but for discussion purposes), the Court pointed out many prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession as consistent with the Second Amendment.  Then, in McDonald v Chicago (2010), the Court concluded that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent it limits the Federal government. In sum, you have a broad Amendment, rooted in our Bill of Rights, which has been upheld by the highest Court in our country. Thus, there is a fundamental legal reason that can be cited why gun control legislation is often met with resistance and controversy.  Proponents of the Second Amendment emphasize the language that the right to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed”. That said, reality may bring about more change, because the world that existed in 1791 differs markedly from today. So, too, have the kinds and volumes of “firearms” that are available.

Q:  Does California have restrictions on the ability to purchase guns?

D.Y., Lakewood

A: Actually, California has some of the strictest gun control laws in the United States.  Thus, some see us as a model for future laws elsewhere, whereas others worry about eroding the right to bear arms.  Guns are widely used, often without much restriction at all, in most U.S. states; uses include hunting, sport, and self-protection.  California, and several other states (such as Massachusetts and New York), limit the sale of certain firearms, accessories and ammunition.  California outright bans the sale of military-style assault rifles, as well as high-capacity ammunition clips. In addition, California registers hand guns, and, starting in 2014, will maintain records on rifles and shotguns sold here. Buyers of various guns must wait for ten days while federal and state authorities investigate the purchaser for history of potential serious mental illness or a criminal record. While sale of guns and ammo through the internet is unrestricted in some areas, firearms in California must be sold through a licensed dealer. One problem, however, is people may buy firearms in another state, and then bring them here. Suffice it is to say that it is a very difficult issue whether gun control is part of the answer to excessive violence in our communities, or if the focus should be on crime control. I say both should be the focus.

Ron Sokol is a Manhattan Beach attorney with more than 30 years of experience. His column appears on Wednesdays. Email questions and comments to him at RonSesq@aol.com or write to him at Ask The Lawyer, Daily Breeze, 21250 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 170, Torrance, CA 90503. This column is a summary of the law and not a substitute for legal consultation on any particular case.