Marin IJ Readers’ Forum for Jan. 16, 2023 – Marin Independent Journal

Best plan would have been to expand guardrail

When I saw the so-called upgrade to the fence along Sir Francis Drake Boulevard (“Sir Francis Drake Boulevard crashes prompt fence project,” Jan. 2), I cringed.

The 4×4 posts would have been a viable solution if one was trying to prevent people from going past some bluff or overlook. In this location, however, it’s like a band-aid on a compound fracture. Cars weighing thousands of pounds moving at speed are shredding these posts like nothing.

My idea, although no one asked me, would have been to add a 3-foot extension to the guardrail to prevent cars from impacting pedestrians. Doing so would have preserved the best parts of the already present (and paid for) infrastructure. Instead, here we are, at square one with a bunch of money spent providing little dividend.

— Joseph Brooke, Point Reyes

Supreme Court right to support Title 42

The recent editorial by the Southern California News Group published in the Marin IJ (“Supreme Court’s defense of Title 42 is absurd,” Jan. 5) is flawed. Judge Emmet Sullivan’s characterization of the law as “arbitrary and capricious,” is hardly correct.

Is the COVID-19 epidemic no longer a threat? The omicron XBB.1 variant can escape vaccines and is highly transmissible. As the number of cases rose during the holiday season, I heard some calls of reinstituting masking and other precautions. Lifting Title 42 is premature.

President Joe Biden announced his plans to accept as many as 30,000 asylum seekers per month from four countries: Nicaragua, Cuba, Haiti and Venezuela. This is 10 times the 20-year average. Can we trust the administration to vet these applicants properly?

The past two years have not been encouraging. Although more than 2 million migrants have been turned away under Title 42, there are estimates that more than 5 million undocumented migrants crossed into the United States. Moreover, the amount of fentanyl and other drugs seized at the border is 10 times what it was in 2020. Research shows that Mexican drug cartels are richer and more powerful than ever.

The Biden administration could make the United States and Mexico safer by reinstating former President Donald Trump’s border policies and simply enforcing the law. There should be no talk of “comprehensive immigration reform,” amnesty or other changes in policy until the borders are secured. A credible immigration policy starts and ends with enforcement, unambiguous in both words and actions.

In his dissent, Justice Neil Gorsuch is correct that courts should not be making immigration policy. A derelict Congress failed to make provisions for enforcement in its $1.7 trillion omnibus bill. This, in part, prompted a rebellion over the House of Representatives speakership by “extreme far-right” members.

To paraphrase Barry Goldwater, “extremism in the defense of public safety is no vice.” The court’s ruling should stand.

— Michael Hartnett, Greenbrae

Part of AR-15’s danger is the ammunition it uses

In a recent commentary published by the IJ (“A ban on assault weapons isn’t the answer to gun violence,” Dec. 23), W. Scott Lewis builds his case by correctly highlighting the similarities assault weapons share with other handguns and long arm. He clearly has a good understanding of these weapons. I think this makes his argument seem disingenuous, since it lacks many salient facts about assault weapons in general and the AR-15 in particular.

First, Lewis states that the AR-15’s 5.56-millimeter round is considered a medium caliber round, being smaller than many hunting rifles. That’s true. But it’s the same round that the US and much of the NATO military forces use in their assault weapons. One of the reasons it has become standard issue is because it is a lightweight, high-speed round. That makes it accurate and lethal against long distance targets. I suspect mass murderers appreciate this.

Second, its lighter weight makes it easier for troops to carry more of them than the 7.62 round it replaced. Magazines for these weapons are readily available in sizes up to 100 rounds, which weigh in at under 5 pounds. That’s perfect for an assailant to carry up to a rooftop perch if their intention is to fire as many rounds as possible in a short period of time at distant targets.

These additional facts are what make the AR-15 different from semi-automatic hunting rifles and account for why it’s the favored choice for mass shooters.

For these reasons, a ban on these weapons makes a lot of sense.

—Tom Short, San Rafael