Analyze problems from gun permits
Re “Almighty NRA is all but paper tiger in California” (Forum, Dan Morain, June 26): The Sacramento Bee has written about Assemblyman Kevin McCarty’s proposal to further restrict concealed carry weapons permits.
As an aside, I bought my first rifle when 12 years old, am now 73 and have had 61 years of firearms use without a bit of trouble. Even though I’m a gun owner, I do not oppose actions out-of-hand that would have a demonstrable chance of reducing firearms misuse.
But before others support McCarty’s proposal, we ought to see an analysis of the gun problems associated with concealed carry permits. I would be shocked if it was not close to zero. This is really a red herring, and I believe it will do nothing to reduce gun violence. I really don’t think McCarty and other Democrats in the Legislature give a hoot about the effectiveness of their proposals but just want to look like they’re doing something.
Sign Up and Save
Get six months of free digital access to The Sacramento Bee
Frank Michny, Newcastle
Time to get rid of 2nd Amendment
In regards to the Second Amendment, I will quote from James Ellis’ excellent book “The Quartet” about the writing and ratification of the Constitution, where he explains why Madison wrote the Second Amendment:
“Madison was responding to recommended amendments from five states, calling for the prohibition of a permanent standing army. … It is clear that Madison’s intention in drafting his proposed amendment was to assure those skeptical souls that the defense of the United States would depend on state militias rather than a professional, federal army. ... The recent Supreme Court decision … that found the right to bear arms an inherent and nearly unlimited right is clearly at odds with Madison’s original intentions.” (Pages 211-212)
Since we have a federal Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines, we do not need militias; hence the Second Amendment is no longer applicable. Time to get rid of it!
Lindy Tillement, Rio Linda
Original intent of regulated militia
Re “Congress and our militias” (Forum, The Drawing Board, June 26): Thanks for publishing Signe Wilkinson’s illustration of “Our Well-Regulated Militia ...” I finally understand the “original intent” of those words.
Edric Cane, Carmichael
Financial markets, Brexit and Trump
Re “Brexit parallels Trump’s success” (Viewpoints, June 26): Kathleen Parker compares the similarities between Britain’s vote to leave the European Union and Donald Trump’s candidacy for president of the United States. A glaring omission is the comparison of financial implications.
In the face of uncertainty of their vote to leave the EU, the pound lost more than 10 percent of its value in one day, and markets plunged worldwide. The election of Donald Trump would engender an uncertainty of a vastly greater magnitude than that of Britain leaving the EU.
Are Americans prepared to take, say, a 25 percent or perhaps a 50 percent drop in the value of their savings and portfolios? The thrust of Parker’s column is that Hilary Clinton should not take Trump lightly. The more important lesson that might be gleaned from noting the similarities between Trump and the Brexit would seem to be that American voters are flirting with financial catastrophe.
Richard Vidan, Orangevale
If Trump wins, how about Calexit?
Re “Calexit” (Jack Ohman cartoon, June 26): I am a 90-year-old who is horrified by the prospect of a draft-dodging, misogynistic, loudmouth like Donald Trump becoming president. He praises the British voters for their support of Brexit. The English voted for it while the Scots voted overwhelmingly against leaving the European Union.
However, if Trump becomes president, I suggest that we take a leaf out of the British playbook. How about a movement called “Calexit”? California has the world’s sixth-largest economy. Let’s go it alone. We don’t need the other states. They do nothing but criticize us anyhow.
Of course, we could take Oregon and Washington with us. Since California would by its sheer size overwhelm the other two states we would have to break it into four sections. This new nation would thus have six states. Washington, Oregon, the Jefferson area up north, North California, South California and San Francisco.
Eugene E. Elzufon, Davis
Penalty should reflect harm done
Re “California’s definition of rape needs an overhaul” (Editorials, June 26): The law intends to objectively punish convicted defendants for the degree of harm they inflicted on a victim. That is why a murderer gets a longer sentence than those who only badly beat up their victims. Both defendants harmed a victim, but the different sentences reflect the degree of harm suffered.
Brock Turner’s act of digital penetration of the victim was a serious felony deserving punishment, but unlike the California crime of rape it did not subject the victim to the possibility of pregnancy, AIDS or other sexually transmitted diseases.
Additionally, the victim’s letter in this case makes clear that she felt at least equally victimized by the anxiety-ridden period she suffered awaiting the defendant’s constitutionally guaranteed trial and her obligatory involvement as a prosecution witness. Whom should we punish for that?
Frank Horowitz, Sacramento
Closing Diablo Canyon is good?
Re “Diablo Canyon pact should put an end to nuclear power debate” (Forum, June 26): So Pacific Gas & Electric concluded that the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant is not economical, at least not in California. However they must be elsewhere as there are nuclear plants operating and under construction in other parts of the U.S. and in other countries.
Since California has requirements about how much power must come from wind or solar, it is easier and more profitable for PG&E to abandon the plant and buy power elsewhere, so why fight it?
We’ll just send hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of jobs elsewhere so we won’t have that nasty nuclear plant around anymore. Are we sure that’s a good deal?
Bill Jurkovich, Citrus Heights
EXTRA LETTERS ONLINE
Find them at:
HOW TO SUBMIT
Online form (preferred):
Other: Letters, P.O. Box 15779,
Sacramento, CA 95852
150-word limit. Include name, address and phone number. Letters may be edited for clarity, brevity and content.