Federal government should defend gun rights Re: “Concealed carry should be state decision,” From Readers, Nov. 22
As an avid defender of states’ rights myself, I appreciate Jeff Underwood’s reasoning for opposing a federal law requiring all states to recognize the concealed carry permits of others; however, he is wrong on this issue. While the Tenth Amendment solidly affirms states’ rights, it does not grant them the power to infringe upon those outlined in the previous nine, including the Second. The right to self defense is a human right, and whether somebody needs to carry a concealed firearm to exercise that right is for that individual to decide for himself or herself. A federal law requiring states to recognize concealed carry permits should exist.
Brian Wrenn
Washington, DC
States should decide on concealed carry
Re: “Concealed carry should be state decision,” From Readers, Nov. 22
I agree with Jeff Underwood’s critique of Washington Republicans’ attempt to federalize state concealed carry laws with the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity bill, which passed in the House recently.
I fully support the right to carry and applaud those states who observe “shall issue” carry rights, but I do not support expanding the scope of the federal government to guarantee those rights. Federalism, articulated through the 10th Amendment, grants certain powers to the states.
I have no doubt in my mind that this legislation is well meaning; however, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions,” and I am concerned nationalizing carry rights could open the door to national gun registration and further restricting gun rights. And as Mr. Underwood wrote, “Say ‘No’ to national carry. Say ‘Yes’ to 50-state reciprocity.”
Matthew Hurtt
Arlington, Va.
America’s poor are not helpless victims
The Occupy Wall Street protesters regard the injustices of income inequality and inadequate taxation of the rich among their grievances. They seem unaware of the income and tax distribution characteristics in the U.S. economy.
Americans are not locked into their income categories, but move in and out of them. A Treasury Department study of U.S. income mobility a couple of years ago revealed that over a ten year period almost 60 percent of income tax filers in the lowest 20 percent had moved up, while about an equal number in the fourth quintile moved up to the fifth and down to the third. About a third of the filers in the top 20 percent dropped out of it to a lower one. Recent updating suggests that upward mobility from the lowest quintile is less frequent, but is still operative in the others.
As to the rich paying their fair share, a recent study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) reported that the top 10 percent of U.S. taxpayers pay a greater portion of the entire national personal tax burden — total taxes on income, payroll, and consumption — than their counterparts in any of the other 23 OECD countries. The range is from the U.S. high of 45.1 percent to a low of 20.9 (Switzerland), with the weighted average being 31.6 percent. Personal taxation in the U.S. is the most progressive of all the OECD countries, principally because the U.S. doesn’t have a regressive national value added tax.
There is much in our economy and system of taxation that needs fixing, but to do so effectively requires that we start with facts, not slogans.
Bob Foys
Inverness, Ill.
