Readers Write: Gun control, primary voting, mining near the Boundary Waters, coronavirus

An old law school maxim for new barristers goes something like: If you have the facts, bang on the facts, if you have nothing, bang on the table. Gun-safety advocates have visited our state Capitol and others nationwide, talking with legislators and handing out leaflets citing statistics that demonstrate how common sense gun-safety laws have led to decreases in gun violence in states that have adopted them. We have also seen how gun-rights advocates have staged demonstrations, not in suit and tie handing out leaflets with supportive statistics, but wearing camouflage, their bodies dripping with assault weapons. Or they trail and harass Parkland High School shooting survivors who are leading voter registration drives or adopt resolutions aimed at festooning their states with gun sanctuary counties, where officials would refuse to enforce gun safety laws.

These are intimidation tactics, pure and simple. It is banging on the table due to lack of argument that their position would promote the common good. The assumption that the founding fathers intended for completely unregulated gun ownership ignores historical precedent, ignores Supreme Court ruling on the meaning of the Second Amendment, and is a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution. That is, the facts don't support that viewpoint. Those who espouse it are often fond of claiming that they are the only thing standing between us and tyranny. They would do well to consider another quote from our forefathers, this one written on the facade of the Supreme Court: "Justice, The Guardian Of Liberty."

I was an election judge in Plymouth. For an election that was expected to be a nonevent, turnout was tremendous. As before I am always knocked out by the caliber and fortitude of the people who voted. The venue was not ideal — remote parking and icy walks that were difficult for disabled people. Yet they struggled and came because their vote was important to them. To those who sit at home, you don't know what a privilege and honor you are missing out on.

In "Mining advocates boycott tribe Forte Band resort, golf course over band's support of mining ban" (March 3), we learn of the efforts taken by mining proponents in northeastern Minnesota to financially hurt the businesses owned by the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe. These efforts consist of canceling scheduled events at these businesses and holding them elsewhere, and they are carried out by chambers of commerce, golf fundraising groups, hunters associations and others. Tim Mattson, chapter president of the Minnesota Deer Hunters Association and worker for U.S. Steel's Minntac operation, made his group's move because, as the article stated, the tribe "was taking a stand against an industry that helped support the band's business." Mattson is quoted as saying, "Why would you take a stance against the people that built your business?"

I have an answer to that, Mr. Mattson. The tribe has been in that area for a long time and likely wants to stay. Its members want to preserve their lands, the environment and their culture. They seek to protect natural beauty and a way of life that are not replaceable if they should ever become spoiled or lost. These goals are much more important to them and to many Minnesotans than your short-term financial gain. I don't see why that should be so difficult to understand.

With that sort of attitude, it's no wonder this mining venture continues to be battled out in court.

The March 2 commentary titled "Restore the rule of law, and PolyMet's permit" argues that the Minnesota Court of Appeals' decision to refer the PolyMet permit dispute for a contested case proceeding before the Office of Administrative Hearing is somehow contrary to common sense. This claim reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of what the OAH does.

Rather than rogue "solitary lawyers" who substitute their judgment for "technical data," the administrative law judges who preside over contested case proceedings carefully and thoughtfully weigh conflicting evidence presented by all parties. Having practiced as a lawyer before the OAH for 30 years, I can say with great confidence that our ALJs are hardworking, knowledgeable, and, most importantly, fair-minded.

The issues presented by PolyMet's permit applications are unquestionably very important for the future of our state and are more than deserving of careful scrutiny. A contested case proceeding before the Office of Administrative Hearings is the mechanism provided by law for undertaking such scrutiny.

Kudos to Chris Knopf for his excellent piece ("Walz is undermining goals by supporting mining," March 2) explaining why the proposed sulfide mining in northern Minnesota is such an undeniable threat to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness.

For all the brave suggestions of the two mining companies about trying to protect the surrounding areas, pollution of those waters going into the BWCA and Lake Superior would be unavoidable. Sulfide mining is regarded as the most polluting mining in the country, and there is no such mine that has not polluted the surrounding waters.

And, it must be noted that it is a very low-grade deposit of copper — needing up to 300 pounds of ore to get one simple pound of copper.

Now that we're all doing a slow count to 20 as we lather up to the elbows, shouldn't we think at least twice about grabbing for the omnipresent cellphone? (God forbid, you brought it into the bathroom with you.) We're told there are at least 10 times more germs on cellphones than on toilet seats. Coronaviruses have been reported to live on glass, plastic and metal for two hours to nine days. The recommendation for disinfecting is a 60:40 water/alcohol solution sprayed on a paper towel. Clean that screen.