It’s a real shame, as the L.A. Times laments (“The Right to Bear Arms,” Napa Valley Register guest editorial, June 28) that the recent gun-control decision “needlessly complicates the lives of legislators seeking to bring gun violence under control.”

Yet it’s difficult to understand how a decision so badly needed could at the same time be a “needless complication.” But so it seems to the Times (and, presumably, to the Register).

 When the real rights of the people have, after long violation, been restored, it’s a little unseemly to be crying in our beer instead of rejoicing. Our founding fathers bequeathed us a system in which it is possible to right a wrong peacefully, which has just happened. Rejoice! It wasn’t so easy in their generation. They suffered patiently for years under numerous injustices before taking the necessary step of declaring independence, which for those who haven’t read it lately, is thoroughly explained in the Declaration of Independence. It meant death for many. Concerning which John Quincy Adams said (to us), “Posterity — you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it.”

The editorial states that the Supreme Court chose between “two historically plausible arguments about… the Second Amendment.” Not exactly. The choice was between one historically plausible argument and one untenable argument, and thankfully the Court made the right choice. And unfortunately, it’s obvious today that there is absolutely no guarantee the Court will make a right decision about anything.

To discern between the plausible argument (“the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms”) and the untenable one (“the amendment’s reference to a ‘well-regulated militia’ limits the right to keep and bear arms to organized military units”), one needs only a basic knowledge of history. At the time of both the Declaration and the Constitution (13 years later), American households were universally armed. To think that the revered Bill of Rights actually announced to Americans, who had recently concluded a bloody and sacrificial war for their freedom, “You no longer have the right to bear arms,” is historically ludicrous. Such an amendment would never have passed. That is a baseless interpretation no matter how many Supreme Court justices hold it. We need to know enough to recognize when the Court is wrong, because the Court’s decisions are not the supreme law, the Constitution is. Sadly, the courts are often wrong. Fortunately, wrong decisions can be changed.

We might keep in mind that the purpose of the Revolutionary War was to deliver us from tyrannical, oppressive government which had no qualms about ignoring our natural rights. It was an act of self-defense. How odd then if they had quickly turned around and denied the right to bear arms in self-defense.

Also, we need to understand that the Declaration is the context of the Constitution. The Constitution did not start from scratch. It simply gave form to the Union of Free and Independent States, which the Declaration calls the United States of America. The Declaration is the charter, the Constitution merely the bylaws. Thus, the Bill of Rights does not create any rights. It simply recognizes and expresses some of the unalienable rights mentioned in the Declaration. All men have the same unalienable rights because they are an endowment from our Creator, but few governments recognize this fact. You can violate rights but you can’t remove them. They existed before government, but “to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.” Respecting unalienable rights is the essence of America.

Self-defense is a natural, unalienable right. We have it by virtue of being made by God, thus no one can say to another, “You don’t have the right to defend yourself,” not even a U.S. Supreme Court justice. That our courts have said so is a travesty, but it doesn’t change the fact.

Actually, Justice Scalia misstated this point when he said, “The Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.” Rather, the amendment expressed this right. It requires that the government not infringe the (already existing) right to bear arms.

To confer means “to bestow upon as a gift, favor or honor.” What is conferred can be revoked. But what has not been conferred cannot be revoked. The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to make explicit certain rights because some were concerned a federal government might deny them. But the forgotten Ninth Amendment plainly states that we have rights not even mentioned in the Bill of Rights. That’s fine because the Bill of Rights is not the source of our rights as human beings or as American citizens. God is.

(Protz lives in Napa.)