Dear Sir,

In your feature article last week, “Cross-border arms trafficking,” you state that “Mexicans (and I assume that applies to foreigners as well) are only permitted to buy weapons of a lower caliber than a .357 Magnum, such as a .380 or .38 Special.”  If I am not mistaken, a .380 or a .38 Special is of higher caliber than a .357 Magnum.  Am I to assume that a .38 is legal, whereas a .357 is not?

Dear Sir,

I’m waiting.  In fact, I’ve been waiting patiently for a couple of weeks now.  Cannot understand the delay as normally, at such news, the press and U.S. State Department are issuing all sorts of notices and warnings. But this time, nothing. Nada.

Dear Sir,

Something terrible has happened to me and, since it could happen to anyone, your readers should be aware of it.  I have a bank account with Bank of America.  They have an arrangement with Santander whereby I can use their ATMs without cost or exchange fees.  This sounds like a dream until you lose 432 dollars.  On  June 8, I went to the Santander in Chapala and attempted to withdraw 6,000 pesos to pay my rent.  After my ATM card had been “read,” a message flashed on the machine saying that it was out of order.  I reported this to Santander, but they said that I would need to report this to Bank of America.  I made that report immediately.  I waited ten days, but nothing had been done.  I called B of A again and they reimbursed my money on June 20.  I thought that this issue had been settled.  However, in mid-August, I received a letter from B of A saying that on August 1 they had deducted the money again.  B of A said that Santander had not corroborated my story.  To make matters worse, the statute of limitation on these complaints is 30 days, so due to the delay in getting mail here in Mexico, I had little time to make formal complaints.

Dear Sir,

Thanks to John Pint after reading his article about “The Liberation of Kari the Fox.” What a great story about your family of foxes. Keep it up, as I love reading about your adventures.

Dear Sir,

Maybe “Love in Action” should change its name to “Bigotry in Action.” Throughout the article in last week’s Reporter (“Feud over mission statement …”), the context was religious bigotry instead of what was good for the children. Given a chance, the Christian leaders would rather destroy the shelter than take it in a non-religious direction.

Dear Sir,

I would like to clear up a misconception that may have been created by something stated in last week’s article about Love in Action (LiA).