Editor:

I am writing on the subject of the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling on Tuesday, against domestic violence offenders right to bear arms. Please somebody tell me the logic behind this law.

First of all, domestic violence is a misdemeanor crime, not a felony. Convicted felons are prohibited from owning or possessing or transporting any gun or ammunition for life. A misdemeanor is a violation of a state law, which according to federal law, is not an offense keeping people from their Second Amendment rights.

My question is this, why can "Bob" go across the street to his neighbors house "Jim" and beat him to a pulp, receive an aggravated assault charge and still keep his guns, but if "Jim" threatens, shoves or even slaps his wife, he loses his right to bear arms for life?

Now don't get me wrong, I am not an advocate of domestic violence, but both the neighbor and the husband acted on emotion and either one is capable of committing a gun crime against the other, in my opinion. We will never be able to stop a criminal from committing a gun crime if he really wants to commit one. So why the double standard?

PAUL WOOD, Casper