By Charles Lam
By R. Scott Moxley
By Taylor Hamby
By Matt Coker
By R. Scott Moxley
By Charles Lam
By LP Hastings
By Taylor Hamby
When only the government has guns, there will be no one out here with the means to protect your First Amendment rights when the politicians decide your dissent with their policies is inappropriate or inconvenient. In destroying the Second Amendment, they will have already established that there are no "unalienable rights."
Think on it.—Gary Sweeney, Cincinnati, Ohio The editors respond: We could debate about the true meaning of the Second Amendment, but that's irrelevant because Schou's article made no reference to undermining the Second Amendment. The article was about how a proposed California law (which also makes no reference to obliterating the Second Amendment) could doom manufacturers of cheaply made products that have malfunctioned, fallen apart and even maimed their users.
While I appreciated the opportunity to have my views printed concerning your coverage of the recent Saturday night special ban, I did not appreciate that more than 50 percent of the letter was cut before it went to print (Letters, Sept. 24). In my opinion, these changes altered the message of the letter—from focusing on media misrepresentation of the bill to simply harping about more guns being banned than I agree with.
As I stated in the original letter, handgun banning was not the issue I wished to raise, as I know that many OC Weekly readers couldn't care less. The cartoon that pointed fun at people who compare deaths resulting from cars and guns certainly didn't help me make my point, but since we are on that subject, allow me to restate the issue in similar terms: Senate Bill 15 is the equivalent of a bill banning sports cars, but it could potentially ban any car capable of traveling faster than 65 mph. My point remains that this distinction would be irrelevant to most people when discussing firearms, but that the Weekly and other media outlets chose to cover the subject in ways that ignored or hid such a fact is—or should be—unacceptable.—Bill Field, Huntington Beach The editors respond again: You're absolutely right—we did cut more than 50 percent of your original letter. As noted at the top of this page, "Letters may be edited for clarity and length." That means we can cut your letter. If we hadn't cut yours, we would have had an All Bill Field Letters page, and how fun is that? So we cut out everything that did not directly address the Weekly story that spurred you to write. By the way, the reason our story focused on one effect of the bill was not to deceive readers, but rather to highlight something that would have severe consequences for one controversial Orange County company, gunmaker Bryco Arms. SPIN
1. The Irvine Co. has no "deal" to take back part of the beach we sold the state park in 1979. No such mechanism exists for us to do so even if we wanted to.
2. The beach was sold to the park with several existing leaseholders already in place, including those people who live in the trailer park and the beach cottages. The state park can do with them what they choose. The Irvine Co. has no involvement in what happens with those leaseholders any longer. Whoever led you to believe this did not understand the facts.
3. You did not understand that "fine print" when you concluded that the Irvine Co. was "effectively given the right to control all of the park's concessions contracts." The one and only concession right we maintained was if the park ever decided to do commercial development on the property (which they are now contemplating with this resort), they give us the right to build it for them at fair market value. In the case of the resort you are writing about, we did not exercise this right.
Thus, we are out of it. If your paper ever wishes to check the facts before it publishes allegations involving us in the future, I hope you won't hesitate to call first.—Paul Kranhold, vice president, Corporate Communications, The Irvine Co., Newport Beach R. Scott Moxley responds: I apologize for using the words "take back." Your letter indicates that you think I should have said the company reserves the right to "develop" the beach should the state decide to build there. That's a distinction with little difference, and one that gives small comfort. That takes care of Nos. 1 and 3; the concession you refer to in No. 3 is the mechanism you say doesn't exist in No. 1.
With regard to point No. 2, search me: my article was perfectly silent on "people who live in the trailer park and the beach cottages."
Though it's not enumerated, I'd note that there's a point No. 4: "Thus, we are out of it." Not quite. As my original story indicated, a former Irvine Co. executive heads Crystal Cove Preservation Partners, the ironically named developer on the state beach project. Further, park preservationists might reasonably have expected the company to do for the Crystal Cove State Beach what it did to protect rich homebuyers in its Newport Coast development: write into the agreement with government officials an absolute ban on future development. Notably, it did not.CORRECTION