Letters to the Editor | July 6, 2023
Inquirer readers on the need for gun reform following the mass shooting in Kingsessing, and a troubling Supreme Court decision that could endanger some bodies of water in the U.S.
An invitation
Nick Elizalde, my grandson, was shot and killed at his Roxborough High School football game on Sept. 27. Five people were shot and killed in Kingsessing on Monday. Innocents are shot on football fields, at rec centers, graduations, driveways, and homes — in inner-city and rural communities. Not armed for self-defense, they rely on a well-informed and engaged electorate, the Constitution, and elected officials to protect them. The Second Amendment guarantees a well-regulated militia. But as we continually strive to form a more perfect union, let’s make some changes to save lives. While Congress works on federal solutions, the Pennsylvania Senate can establish extreme risk protection orders and background checks. I would ask State Sen. Cris Dush, chair of the Senate Second Amendment Caucus and who recently wrote an op-ed against gun reform, to meet with me for a conversation. Nick can’t speak for himself. Allow me to share his story with you, your caucus, and your other Senate colleagues. Please. Do it for Nick.
Marge LaRue, Aston, laruehouse@verizon.net
Professional shame
A history museum’s most precious asset is its singular place in civic life as an objective arbiter of the past and an independent platform for civil discourse, open to all and free of prejudice. It is sacrosanct across the profession that to safeguard this integrity, museums do not host, endorse, rent space to, or in any other way become a backdrop to the agendas of religious or political organizations. When the Museum of the American Revolution hosted Moms for Liberty — a designated extremist group — it indelibly compromised the standing of this institution and assaulted the integrity of the museum field at large. As a former museum director, I am appalled and ashamed that for years to come, this institution’s biggest enduring headline will not be the day it opened its doors, or the day the curtain first rose to reveal George Washington’s battle tent, but the day it welcomed divisive and controversial purveyors of hate and bigotry.
Brian Thompson, Madison, Wis.
Dark tides
An article in The Inquirer listing the far-right rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court gave only one paragraph to the decision to limit protection for certain “waters of the United States.” All Americans should be concerned about this decision. It affects the water you drink, the fish you eat, the natural areas you visit, and the property you might buy. It affects carbon sequestration, thereby affecting our climate. At issue is what constitutes these waters, as specified in the Clean Water Act. Congress clearly meant waters within the geographical boundaries of the U.S., yet twisted legalese now licenses developers to fill certain wetlands and lakes, and licenses industry to dump chemicals, poisoning anything and everything that lives or visits these waters, including humans and their pets. Astonishingly, all nine justices agreed that the complainant could fill a wetland with gravel without a permit. However, the five-justice majority gave absurd reasoning totally counter to science. The minority, including Justice Brett Kavanaugh, recognized that adjacent waterways are intrinsically interconnected through underground channels, even if there is no surface connection. Unfortunately, the conservative majority has now set a precedent, making it a free-for-all for developers and polluters.
Robin Schaufler, Swarthmore
Join the conversation: Send letters to letters@inquirer.com. Limit length to 150 words and include home address and day and evening phone number. Letters run in The Inquirer six days a week on the editorial pages and online.