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.

[philman_36]

You place your money on 100,000 riflemen while one cannister of sarin gas equalizes the field.
Kinda like Saddam Hussein equalized the field with the Kurds, his own countrymen, when he gassed them?

[Luis Gonzalez]

P.S. I know about current FAA regs.

[Jeff Head]

Nope ... you are not projecting your own though process here IMHO.

1st, it's 10,000,000+ (that's over 10 million), not 100,000.

2nd, the 10 million are deciminated all over the country ... such an attempt as you describe to "level the field" would only P them O all the more.

3rd, you are apparently swithcing gears from government tyranny to terrorism.

Either way, the best Homeland Security IMHO is the 2nd amendment and firearms in the hands of as many millions of citizens as possible.

If you disagree with that ... then I'm sorry ... we simply disagree. Said disagreement will have no bearing on my, or millions of others intent, right and actual bearing of arms.

Fregards, Jeff

[Cultural Jihad]

Yes, I would imagine the Kurds had rifles, supposedly. Thousands of them died in a matter of minutes. Certainly 100,000,000 hunting rifles would be a formidible stumbling block, but not an insurmountable one.

[philman_36]

So you think it's okay for a government to gas it's Citizens with sarin gas if they are thinking of revolting and overthrowing a despotic government?

[Cultural Jihad]

I have no doubt that small arms are efficacious against a handful of oppressors, but realistically if you can't reload faster than a machinegun or penetrate a tank, the attempt may be brave and valiant but will ultimately be futile. Even so, no one should have any problems with personal arms since they are a very efficacious self-defense against criminals.

[Jeff Head]

My understanding is that most of the kurds in those towns were women, children and older men ... and unarmed

Either way, it is not an apt comaprison to our nation where there are something like 80+ million armed and they are fairly evenly dissimanted all over the country. Like I said, such an effort today in this country, whether by terrorists or agencies of government, would only serve to really PO those with the arsms and then it would be abject open-season on those perpetrators ... there would literally be no place for them to hide.

This is not to say that we do not need government or a organized military ... we do, to make sure that other nations don't try and make all-out war on us.

It's just that said government and military must always be cognizant by whose leave they serve. If these governmental servants know that the citizenry is well armed, then they will be most apt to keep that in mind.

[philman_36]

I have no doubt that small arms are efficacious against a handful of oppressors, but realistically if you can't reload faster than a machinegun or penetrate a tank, the attempt may be brave and valiant but will ultimately be futile.
Everybody has to go to the head sometime in the field, guerilla warfare, and everybody learned from the Poles not to go against a tank by hand. You need some military history/tactics instead of the humanist/socialist courses you obviously took in college.

[Jeff Head]

but realistically if you can't reload faster than a machinegun or penetrate a tank, the attempt may be brave and valiant but will ultimately be futile.

You are sorely misinformed. Re-read my post number 135 and think logistics, resupply, etc.

[philman_36]

You are sorely misinformed.
He believes...

[philman_36]

...but realistically...
It isn't what he knows, it's what he believes.
Wasn't sure if you caught my drift.

[BenR2]

The courts have upheld time and again reasonable restrictions on gun ownership, but what is reasonable for a community should be up to the community in question.

/ / / / /
A reply so rubbery that it has no substance: Hillary Clinton's idea of "reasonable restrictions" would be zero guns for BenR2.

[Cultural Jihad]

BenR2 is a responsible member of society and has never proven himself to be otherwise.

[capitan_refugio]

Those were rhetorical questions. As Justice Scalia says, "The Constitution is not a living document; it is an enduring document." It is the idea behind the 2nd Amendment that makes it some troublesome for the anti-gun crowd. We have a right to protect ourselves - from criminals, from foreign enemies, and from an overzealous government.

I interpret "bear arms" to mean possess and own firearms of all types. I personally think this should include any conventional weapon the military uses, including conventional bombs and delivery systems such as mortars, grenades, automatic weapons, torpedoes, and artillery. I personally draw the line at weapons of mass destruction.

The government has shown a tendency to be overzealous in the enforcement of some of the politically correct laws that have been enacted over the past 30 years. Case in point: a couple of years ago the Parks Service conducted a SWAT style raid on a campground on Santa Cruz Island off of Santa Barbara, California. Black helicopters full of black-clad, body-armored, jack-booted thugs, descended on some campers and bow hunters because of concern by the Superintendent that Indian relics were being dug up and stolen. This wasn't BATF. This wasn't FBI. This was a SWAT raid by the freeking Park Service! You would think after Ruby Ridge and Waco, somebody would get a clue.

I have concluded that the only person really interested in protecting my civil rights is me.

[Betty Jane]

Well, compared to the 80,000,000 armed citizens, the JBT are a handful of oppressors. Now, just assume that not all 80,000,000 million are willing to actively participate. How about 10%? how about if just 1% decided they were fed up? Many of the others would be willing to help simply by giving info.

They collectively know who the oppressors are and where they live and work. The oppressors don't have the same info. After how many guerilla hits do you think they may have their minds changed, 100, 1000, 10,000? Their troops will be demoralized with each elimination while the other side will energized.

Not everyone targetted will be LEO and armed. Sarah Brady and her cohorts would be on the list. Every liberal weenie who ever attacked any freedom would make the list. Sure, someone like Schumer may have protection, but not all his aides do. Those are soft targets that get a message out.

You don't really believe that people who are willing to fight for their rights are going to bring a shotgun and start shooting at SWAT teams. No. The SWAT guys will be taken care of as they get lunch or drive carpool or go out to dinner.

Did you know that there are groups of people who have sworn to take out at least two of them when the SHTF? If I were you, I'd start thinking about which side I want to be on.

[Pat Bateman]

Wow, got a lot of the big names on this one.

Thanks, everyone, for an entertaining and informative thread!

[thisiskubrick]

Just don't try and force such a notion off on the rest of us who are not blind to history and the relevance of firearms in the hands of free citizens. Clearly, your knowledge of and understanding of history, particularly modern history, is fatally flawed from my perspective. Such thinking, when pushed on those who understand that such a right is fundamental, that it is unalienable and that it does not derive from government at all, will lead to open conflict.

I'm not "forcing" or "pushing" anything on anyone, just stating an opinion... so shoot me. :) Maybe I'll move to a totalitarian gun-banning state such as the UK or Australia, where there's less crime! Kubrick

[thisiskubrick]

Columbine was instigated and enabled by great thinkers such as yourself.

Yeah right! It was instigated by two young gun-nuts in training, just as the OK bombing was done by a proud member of the NRA.

[Eaker]

Maybe I'll move to a totalitarian gun-banning state such as the UK or Australia, where there's less crime!

Do some Google research on the increase in armed crimes in your prospective new homes.

There is no Utopia except in your dreams.

Stay safe; stay armed.
Eaker Freeper Status

[sneakypete]

More likely our govt would allow mass immigration for the purposes of filling out an army of tyranny beholded to themselves and not the Constitution.

"Would",or "has"?