Right to bear arms is not absolute

Denver Post ^ | 2-16-03 | State Sen. Ken Gordon

[Pat Bateman]

perspective

Right to bear arms is not absolute

Gun control: Should we attach some strings?

By State Sen. Ken Gordon

Sunday, February 16, 2003 - As an elected official, I often find myself engaging in polite conversations with people with whom I disagree. Some of these discussions inevitably involve a member of the gun lobby asking me what I think the words "shall not be infringed" - which are found in the Second Amendment - mean. The question is asked with an air of confidence, as if it is unanswerable and therefore, once and for all, concludes a difficult and complex argument.

I have a response. I ask them if they think people should be able to carry guns on airplanes.

I usually win at least a draw with this answer, depending on the audience.

Both the question and answer involve the issue of whether the right to bear arms is absolute. Members of the gun lobby say that the order of the amendments in the Bill of Rights indicates their importance. This allows them to say that, after speech, the right to bear arms is paramount.

But even speech is not absolutely protected. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "The right to free speech does not allow one to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater."

There are also laws against libel and slander, fighting words, and pornography. Permissible restrictions on firearms are the equivalent.

The gun issues currently pending in the legislature are concealed weapons and pre-emption of local ordinances.

Proponents of concealed carry talk in terms of "rights," but there is no "right" to carry a hidden gun in Colorado. The state Constitution, after setting forth our right to bear arms, continues: "... but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons."

Nevertheless, although concealed carry is not a right, it is still a fair question as to whether it can be justified as a policy.

In any discussion of concealed carry, statistics compete. Proponents cite a study by John R. Lott, author of "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws," as proof that more guns equal less crime.

Opponents question his methodology and point to increases in murder in states that allow the practice.

My view is that the statistical argument is a wash. I don't believe that people who get permits commit very many crimes, and I don't believe that they stop very many. The philosophical argument, however, is profound.

Proponents feel that the world is a dangerous place and the organized legal community cannot protect them, that an individual can only depend on himself. Opponents feel that people carrying concealed weapons help to make the world more dangerous and that our best hope for safety is in the hands of a sane and just community. Since I have always felt that the solutions to our problems will result from us working together, I have never been tempted by the concealed-carry argument.

The two concealed-carry bills - Senate Bill 63 by Doug Lamborn and SB 24 by Ken Chlouber - vary. Lamborn feels that anyone who can own a gun should be able to get a permit to carry it concealed anywhere. Chlouber's bill requires training, bans on carrying weapons in schools and allows some limited discretion for local sheriffs.

Chlouber's bill is supported by the NRA, and Lamborn's bill is supported by the Gun Owners of America (a group that does the impossible, by making the NRA look moderate). Both bills do away with local control.

The pre-emption bill, SB 25 sponsored by Jim Dyer, will overturn local ordinances regulating guns. He argues that we need statewide uniformity. I don't see why. After 1993's "summer of violence," Denver passed ordinances that law enforcement feels helped deal with gang violence. These ordinances might not be necessary or desirable in Rifle, Leadville or Gunnison, but if we go to one-size-fits-all, these places might be over-regulated or, more likely - and this is what the gun lobby would prefer - Denver will be under-regulated.

Certainly, Americans have a right to bear arms. But what does that mean? Did it mean one thing in 1791 when a frontier nation won a revolution using muskets and another in 2003 when drug gangs use handguns? When the U.S. Constitution protects a specific right, it's clear that this is important and that the individual has some protection against the majority. It does not mean that the right is absolute.

After all, an absolute right for one is the end of rights for others.

Sen. Ken Gordon, a Democrat from Denver, represents District 35, which encompasses Southeast Denver, plus the Arapahoe County enclaves of Glendale and Holly Hills. He can be reached at 303-866-4875 or ken.gordon.senate@state.co.us.

[Pat Bateman]

...Gun Owners of America (a group that does the impossible, by making the NRA look moderate)...

The Denver Whatever has made this the focus of the editorial section today; I'll be posting the other stories soon.

[Travis McGee]

Certainly, Americans have a right to bear arms. But what does that mean? Did it mean one thing in 1791 when a frontier nation won a revolution using muskets and another in 2003 when drug gangs use handguns?

Just read the damn words, fool. The meaning has not changed.

[Lancey Howard]

Did it mean one thing in 1791 when a frontier nation won a revolution using muskets and another in 2003 when drug gangs use handguns?

Can this idiot be serious?
Gordon believes that "drug gangs" will not carry concealed weapons if it is illegal??
LOFL, and this guy is a state senator? What's in the water out there in Denver?

[WFTR]

Is the right to bear arms absolute? No, but restrictions on that right must be based on real harm or danger associated with bearing arms and not the general liberal hatred of guns. For instance, the right to bear arms doesn't give someeone the right to sit on his front porch pointing his gun at everyone who walks by his house. While I completely defend someone's right to sit on the front porch with a gun, using that gun to threaten people by pointing it in a menacing way is beyond the protection intended by the Second Amendment.

To some extent, concealed carry solves some of the problems of "bearing arms" in a way that people might find threatening. Someone who walked into a restaurant with a shotgun over his shoulder would look a little strange in most places. In many ways, even I would feel uncomfortable with that situation. However, someone discretely carrying a handgun is not a threat to anyone else in the restaurant.

WFTR
Bill

[Pat Bateman]

Outstanding response. Thank you.

[Badray]

" But even speech is not absolutely protected. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "The right to free speech does not allow one to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater.""

This is a specious argument at best. The fact is that you can be punished for the misuse of words (yelling 'fire, slander, etc), but that doesn't stop the use of words in that manner or prohibits you from doing it. Anything, including guns, can be misused, and misuse should result in punishment for the individual, but not prohibition for us all. Otherwise, there going to have to start banning cars and . . . Ooops! Don't want to give them any ideas. ;-)

[BenLurkin]

[Pat Bateman]

I've always wondered what would happen if you yelled 'Movie!' in a crowded fire station...

[JSteff]

"I have a response. I ask them if they think people should be able to carry guns on airplanes."

Why yes. How many terrorists would be willing to stand up and try to take over a plane if they thought they could be facing 50+ weapons pointed at them? Very, very few. They are almost all cowards and rarely, if ever attack defended targets. Would the hijackers on 9-11 have succeeded if they had been facing the guns of 1/3 (or more) of the passengers on each plane? That is just simple math. 5 against 60 is just no match.

I wish the Senator would ask me that same question. The 2nd does not say "unless deemed to be okay by the most spineless in any gathering." Why do these types always want to try to second guess the Constitution? How dare they since they are representatives of the people because of the Constitution.

I don't question why he is allowed to be a Senator, the Constitution says so and that is good enough for me. So what thinks he has a right to question other parts of the constitution and work around them to get the ends he wishes to acheive. if he doesn't like the 2nd, he should come right out and say so and try to get it amended. Opps, that would probably mean his demise as a Senator.

Case closed.

[capitan_refugio]

The intent of the 2nd Amendment was to allow the citizens to protect themselves from the government. Read the many comments of the "framers" on the subject.

To that extent, I should be able to own and use firearms and other waepons similar those used by the government.

[Myrddin]

You must be held responsible for the consequences of your ACTIONS. It's not illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater, but if it causes a stampede resulting in injury or death, then you bear responsibility for inciting that behavior. Likewise, merely possessing a firearm is of no threat to anyone. If you USE it inappropriately to threaten harm or cause harm by misuse, then you bear the consequences of that ACTION. The problem boils down to whether or not your ACTION with a given tool results in criminal harm to others. If it does, then prosecute according to the harm inflicted.

[GRRRRR]

Got AMMO??

[ancient_geezer]

I have a response. I ask them if they think people should be able to carry guns on airplanes.

Yes!

Nevertheless, although concealed carry is not a right, it is still a fair question as to whether it can be justified as a policy.

In Colorado unconcealed carry certainly is.

Section 13. Right to bear arms.

• The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.

Unconcealed carry is not only a personal but an unconditional right as well.

[Cachelot]

shall not be infringed

Next: What does "is" really mean?

[Jim Noble]

And he thinks "should people be allowed to carry on airplanes?" is a decisive comeback?

If a few patriots had been carrying on AA Flt. 11, they could have shot Mohammed Atta's sorry ass and saved us all a lot of trouble.

[Eagle Eye]

It stands to reason then, that a citizen should be able to carry any arm (and there's been a thread ot two on FR about what is and isn't a protected arm) that fits under the seat in front of them or in the overhead bin, right?

It would work until some nimrod brings in a WP grenade and has to play with it during the flight. Then someone's got to make some rules.

[Tunehead54]

Next: What does "is" really mean?

---

Hate to tell you who'll you'll have to check with on that one ...

[harpseal]

I ask them if they think people should be able to carry guns on airplanes.

By looking at the history, when there were no restrictions on this we did not have people sucessdfully hijacking aircraft. That is the simple answer. Clearly, if some of the passengers had been armed with firearms and willing to resist there would not have been the aircraft flying into the WTC and the Pentagon.

[yarddog]

To get an idea of just how much this country really has changed, I was watching an old episode of "Perry Mason" a few days ago.

Perry was on a flight to Europe and the guy in the seat ahead of Mason, accidentally drops his revolver and it slides under the seat where Perry picks it up and simply hands it back to it's owner.

Could anyone imagine a TV show now where that happens?

[FreedomPoster]

>>Just read the damn words, fool. The meaning has not changed.

Remember, these are the same kind of people who, when Clinton opined that the definition of "is" might mean something other than what "is" means, nodded their head in agreement.