Posted on 02/16/2003 12:44:49 AM PST by 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.
How many more Holocausts, Gulags, Killing Fields, and Rwandas will it take before people realize disarmament is an invitation to government slaughter?
I usually win at least a draw with this answer, depending on the audience.
Ooohhhh, Ooooohhh, Mr. Kotter, Mr. Kotter, I have a question. How many airplanes were flying the friendly skies above our nation when the 2nd Amendment was written? None, therefore your argument is deemed not germane. So, answer the original freakin question - what do you think the words "shall not be infringed" mean?
Sorry Senator Snapperhead - no draw on this one. You lose.
Hat-Trick
This guy doesn't have a clue. He's a leftist authoritarian from the word go. He's as concerned about rights and other folks thoughts, desires, and independence of will as he is about the dust on his shoe. All he's saying in this article is that his power is, and should be, absolute.
Columbine was instigated and enabled by great thinkers such as yourself.
Same world different day. If you think the Bill of Rights and The 10 Commandments are relative to the opinion of the day, fine. Join the relativists on your merry jihad. Just remember that your's is the dark side.
You're obviously too young to know the meaning of the four most unprofitable words known to mankind: "It's different this time."
Wrong. Ask any member of any army or other paramilitary government group about logistics.
All of those people operating the high tech, all of those people servicing and maintaining it, all of those people planning its use, all of the people directing its use ... all of them ... have to be supplied some way or another.
When there are no "front lines" the 308 Rule and Prop 223 kick in big time ... also Agenda 50. With enough of them in the hands of competant users, they kick in any way.
As Travis McGee has said many time, my money os on the side with the 10,000,000+ hunting rifles.
Or as sneakypete had said ... you'd best outlaw ice picks too, because with an ice pick I will have your service revolver, your shotgun in the back seat and your fancy assault rifle in the trunk.
Society leads an ideologue to civilization
How does society lead an ideologue to civilization?
These are all interesting questions to me.
It seems like you're getting around to answering questions, though in a round about way...
Actually, that is completely up to the airline. Your right to carry a weapon ends the moment you enter that airplane. It's private property, and the owner has the right NOT to allow you on board with a weapon if they so decide.
Also, in spite of the Second, I don't have to allow anyone to carry a weapon into my home, unless they have a warrant.
That's right and they're going full tilt to put a stop to correcting the miscreant in Iraq. Instead, they propose that the proper use of military forces is to keep the subjects down. I'm sure that's why they support sodom. After all he's one of them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.