mail

Letters to the Editor – Oct. 27, 2017

Posted: October 27th, 2017 | Featured, Letters to the editor, Opinion | 2 Comments

Supersize it

Thank you so much for enlarging the size of the crossword puzzle for us seniors who need the larger version to be able to see it. The words are still small but at least the puzzle grid is larger. Perhaps you can use a larger font on the words as well. Thank you.

—G. Armstrong, La Mesa

Everyone’s president

Re: “Gen-X in a millennial world: An unexpected lesson” [Volume 7, Issue 9 or bit.ly/2jWTL3q] 

I love the La Mesa Courier and enjoy reading Genevieve’s column. I know her personally and she is a very nice lady and hard-working mom. However, in her recent column Sept. 22 issue, while the point of the story was heartfelt, she got there by insulting our president. While not everyone voted for him or agrees with him certainly 100 percent of the time, he is everyone’s president.

We, as a country, are only as strong as our patriotism and respect for our country, flag, national anthem and, yes, our president. He has many things on his plate and we need to show solidarity. If you cannot, leave it unsaid for a newspaper article that is about seizing the moment and how life is indeed too short.

This coming on the heels of the NFL disrespecting our flag during the national anthem before what used to be my favorite thing to watch on TV. These types of actions are what lead to the downfall of great nations.

I wanted to let you know, as the editor, that this should have been edited in my opinion: her “Russian threats to democracy” (which, as of yet, is unproven), and mostly “the most recent outrageous thing the U.S. president has done or tweeted.”

—Marcia Tolin, La Mesa

Hooray for HR38

Re: “Letters: Stop HR38 CCR” [Volume 7, Issue 9 or bit.ly/2xtAV9A]

Yes, HR38 would nullify some, not all, of California’s draconian and unconstitutional gun laws. Hooray!

California has systematically attempted the nullification of the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It has passed laws that have stripped California citizens of the uninfringed right to bear arms. California has stripped citizens of the right to openly carry (bear) arms, California has also forbidden citizens the right to receive a concealed carry of a weapon (CCW or CCR), because it has made issuance of such a permit up to the capricious and arbitrary judgment of the county sheriff. Unless you are politically connected or very wealthy you will find it impossible to be approved for a CCR or CCW.

I have a CCW from the state of Florida, which is invalid in California, which required the same requirements for receipt as the California CCW or CCR. I have met all the requirements for the California CCW, except the arbitrary approval of the county sheriff. It seems that there is no acceptable published reason for the sheriff to grant such a permit, unless you are politically anointed.

Ms. Wheatcraft deliberately and intentionally stated that “CCR would allow violent criminals, domestic abusers, and convicted stalkers to carry loaded guns in public.” This is a bald-faced, deliberate and outright lie. Federal and state law forbid and deny any of these mentioned groups to even possess a gun let alone carry one at any time.

To sum it up, the three quarters of the states that have adopted “Shall Issue Policy” to qualified and trained citizens have shown marked drops in violent crime (See John R. Lott Jr.’s book, “More Guns Less Crime”).

—Martin Van Boskirk, La Mesa

Questioning the CAP

Re: “City’s draft climate plan is released” [Volume 7, Issue 7 or bit.ly/2yJIoBf]

If you’re interested in the La Mesa Climate Action Plan (CAP), you’ve probably seen the updated draft noted.

While it proposes a draconian greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction to 2 MTCO2e/capita by 2035, it also points out that the city’s emissions in 2010 were 4.4 MTCO2e/capita (p.26) and the Air Resources Board mandates 6 MTCO2e/capita by 2030. That’s implementing SB-32’s 40 percent GHG emissions mandate and is the only statute setting a numerical limit. So the city already complies with the only applicable state requirement and the CAP is unnecessary.

The CAP proposal also used a Schwarzenegger 80 percent GHG reduction mandate by 2050 executive order, which the state Supreme Court ruled against a few months ago so that’s no longer valid.

I’ve pointed this out to the city and they have promised a response but I’ve yet to receive it. You may know this already and if you know what they plan to do, I’d appreciate knowing what it is. If not, you may want to follow up on this with them.

—John Suhr, La Mesa

2 Comments

  1. John Suhr says:

    Here’s CAP document address mentioned in the above letter:
    http://www.cityoflamesa.com/DocumentCenter/View/10462
    The pertinent information can be found on pps. 26 and 30.

  2. John Suhr says:

    http://www.cityoflamesa.com/DocumentCenter/View/10462

    – is the address of the draft CAP update. See pps. 26 and 30 especially.

Leave a Comment