Rep. Demings wrong on Concealed Carry Reciprocity bill

Rep. Val Demings’ (D-Fla.) recent op-ed (“ ‘Concealed Carry Reciprocity’ measure would gut public safety laws,” June 29) demonstrates she either hasn’t bothered to read the bills she criticizes or is willingly misrepresenting them for political reasons.

Law-abiding Americans are increasingly purchasing firearms but only after undergoing an industry-supported FBI background check. She asserts, falsely or ignorantly, that criminals with domestic violence and violent criminals could carry a gun. She ignores the fact that the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 does nothing to prohibit a state from setting laws within their borders. The bill would prohibit states from making felons of law-abiding firearms owners who exercise their constitutional rights just because they travel across a state border. Your Second Amendment rights don’t stop at the border of your home state. The Second Amendment applies equally in Manhattan as it does Montana.


Sadly, but perhaps not surprisingly, Demings tries to exploit the tragic shooting of Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) to spread falsehoods about suppressors to vilify the Hearing Protection Act of 2017. She claims the explosive sound of gunfire is a safety feature designed to protect police. As a former police chief, she ought to know the truth is suppressors don’t eliminate the sound of gunfire, they only reduce it to a hearing-safe level that is still about as loud as a jackhammer. If she didn’t know, then she should have joined Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.) when he recently invited congressmen and women to witness a suppressor for themselves at the Capitol Hill police range.

Spreading false and discredited talking points fed to her by anti-Second Amendment groups isn’t constructive, only more background noise.

From Lawrence G. Keane, senior vice president and general counsel, National Shooting Sports Foundation, Washington, D.C.

Veterans and Democrats align in acknowledging climate change

Rep. Jim Langevin’s (D-R.I.) June 28 op-ed, “Climate security is national security,” states clearly the security threats posed by climate change, more specifically, the many ways climate change will hamper the effectiveness of our military. As a United States Marine veteran, I can attest to this. Weather plays a huge role in all military operations, and even minor disturbances in our climate can yield dramatic changes that our Navy will be hard pressed to conform to, both operationally and financially.

Defense Secretary James Mattis, also a USMC veteran, seems to agree. He openly stated that a changing environment affects national security. We need leaders to give frank and pragmatic analyses of climate change and its very real consequences. Secretary Mattis claimed that he will prepare the department to address any changes in our climate. But at what cost, considering this could be avoided?

The opinions of myself, Secretary Mattis, and also Sen. John McCainJohn Sidney McCainAnalysis: Biden victory, Democratic sweep would bring biggest boost to economy The Memo: Trump's strengths complicate election picture Mark Kelly: Arizona Senate race winner should be sworn in 'promptly' MORE (R-Ariz.) are all of veterans — and this shows that climate change is not just a liberal hoax. As we can see, some of our most prominent Republican leaders are stepping up and leading our country in a sensible cause-and-effect thought process that will hopefully evaluate climate change in a light that protects our country.

From Russell Quandt, Tempe, Ariz.