Heller listened to voters in casting gun vote

To the editor:

In his Wednesday letter, Mark Isaacs castigates Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev., for the reasoning behind his vote against expanded background checks. I’m one of thousands of his constituents who wrote Sen. Heller and urged him to vote against the bill.

Regarding “onerous paperwork,” my dictionary gives two meanings of “onerous”: 1) burdensome, oppressive or troublesome; causing hardship; and 2) having or involving obligations or responsibilities, especially legal ones, that outweigh the advantages: an onerous agreement.

The rejected gun bill would fit both definitions.

If I wanted to personally sell my $150 single-shot .22-caliber rifle to a local private party whom I found through an ad in the Review-Journal, the bill would require us to go to a federally approved firearms dealer to do the transfer. These FFL holders don’t work for free and typically charge about $25 to handle these types of transfers. Furthermore, the state of Nevada charges an additional $25 fee for the instant background check. A total of $50 in fees to transfer a $150 rifle is burdensome, oppressive, troublesome and causes hardship.

Regarding “the creation of a national gun registry,” Mr. Isaacs states such a registry “was strictly prohibited in the bill.” This isn’t true. The bill stated the attorney general may not consolidate or centralize records of firearms acquisition and disposition maintained by licensed importers, manufacturers, dealers and by buyers and sellers at gun shows. Notice the prohibition is on the attorney general, hence the Justice Department and all its agencies, but not the entire federal government. There is nothing in the bill that prevents other departments or agencies from doing so.

Finally, Mr. Isaacs stated Sen. Heller “takes a dim view of the people he serves.” I beg to differ. His vote was in response to his constituents, not contrary. A recent AP poll indicted that when asked, about one-third of Americans said pass the bill as written, one-third said reject it permanently and one-third said toss out the bill as written and start over.

In other words, in spite of media reports alleging that 90 percent of Americans wanted “expanded background checks,” two-thirds were against the bill as written.

JOHN M. McGRAIL

LAS VEGAS

Protecting whom?

To the editor:

Footloose and free to do as they please, Child Protective Services employees stand above our 14th Amendment rights to due process and equal protection. Without any fear of accountability and free to discriminate for any reason they choose, they may take our sons, daughters, nephews, nieces, brothers, sisters and cousins from us.

What happened to our country? Sadly, it seems we have become a fascist state.

CHUCK BAILEY

CARSON CITY

Banning tanning

To the editor:

Melanoma is the deadliest form of skin cancer, and Nevada’s melanoma rate is among the highest in the country. As recent reports suggest, some of the rise in melanoma rates is due to tanning beds, especially among young women.

Around one-quarter of all high school students report using tanning beds, and the numbers are quickly growing. If our youth tan just two times per year (say for homecoming and prom), that increases their risk of skin cancer, and melanoma in particular, by 75 percent.

I grew up here in Las Vegas, and we always tanned before the dances. Then, at just 34 years old, I was diagnosed with stage 3 melanoma. The aftereffects of having cancer will stay with me forever now, having severe lymph edema from having to have lymph nodes removed as part of my treatment.

In the coming days, the Nevada Legislature has an opportunity to save lives with an important piece of legislation, Senate Bill 267. The bill would protect Nevada’s children from the dangers of indoor tanning by prohibiting the use of cancer-causing UV tanning devices by those under the age of 18. Similar to cigarettes and asbestos, UV tanning beds are a known human carcinogen and are classified as such by the World Health Organization. We protect our minors from the dangers of cigarettes and alcohol by placing restrictions on access. We should do the same with indoor tanning.

While I would encourage everyone to stay out of tanning beds, our kids shouldn’t be given a choice. I urge our lawmakers to pass the indoor tanning ban for children under the age of 18.

SHELLEY BALLESTEROS

LAS VEGAS

Fox News fan

To the editor:

Every day we hear liberals cry about the bias of Fox News. The far left and their sycophants complain about Fox News attacking the president and skewing the news.

Without Fox News, we would not have heard about the following: the Benghazi cover-up; the Gosnell baby-killer case; the real story behind the monstrosity known as ObamaCare; the corruption of the Energy Department giving out billions of dollars to failed companies run by Obama donors, such as Solyndra; and, even more important, the exposing of the left-wing media such as MSNBC and its habit of editing video to push the left-wing agenda.

Without Fox News, all of these stories that went against liberal talking points would never have aired.

For decades, the left had complete control of the media, leading to the one-sided presentation of liberal ideology and the condemnation of conservative principles. The citizenry of this country were slowly being indoctrinated with left-wing pabulum. But now, with the emergence of an outlet that provides context to the conversation, the left is outraged that their propaganda campaign has hit a bump in the road.

The truth shall set you free, and if you want the truth behind many of these stories, the only place to get it is at Fox News.

JOSEPH SCHILLMOELLER

LAS VEGAS