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.
Thanks gents for helping me to understand the rules. I took a minute, but now it's clear.
I never saw any evidence that they were gun nuts. As I remember it, they were punk and nazi nuts. Their parents and the school didn't notice that, just as you don't. Now you and the school blame inanimate objects, other folks and Freedom for your failure to comprehend the reality of the situation.
Your failure to observe and comprehend is why you folks insist on using the least common denominator approach to everything, then attacking, demonizing and pushing for legal controls on everything. No I'm not exaggerating, you people want to control everything in everyone's life on the basis of the least common denominator principle and your predisposition to control everything.
BTW, McVeigh wasn't an NRA member.
Ummm..because hijackers perfer unarmed passengers?
Please don't mis-understand me. I'm as pro-gun as you'll find. This Senator is a blight upon the ass of humanity. His understanding of our constitution is demonstrated by his ridiculous rhetorical question. I wanted to illustrate his stupidity by asking another rhetorical question.
To all my pro-gun, pro-CCW Freeper friends, if you pray please add Nebraska to your prayer list as we're trying to legalize CCW here with the passage of legislation - LB265. It actually looks pretty positive at this point, but these are after all, politicians.
That's the real reason for gun control. There is no other.
Kubrick conveniently leaves out the fact that the kid's old man failed to challenge the kid for having a pipe bomb factory in his bedroom, along with various kinky posters.
Indeed, but as the Trinen case showed, the state alleals court and the state supreme court uphold laws banning same in Denver. Citizens cannot carry open and concealed permits are not issued in the most dangerous city in Colorado.
We need to fix our courts.
Your reply: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.
Klebold and Harris had no training other than a lot of video games and a few episodes of shooting at cans out in the hills, while they were planning their massacre. Klebold's parents were gun-control nuts and big contributors to the Democrat party.
Contrary to the media spin, Klebold and Harris were pro-clinton, anti-Republican, anti-Christian, anti-conservative. This was obvious from the insane ramblings on Harris' personal website pages, which were copied and circulated prior to being removed from public sight. It is also obvious from the fact that the student fatalities centered in the library, and were comprised of eleven Christians and one Jew, all quiet, well-mannered, and studious. The media twisted the story to make it appear the targets were jocks, which was blatently untrue.
Harris and Klebold were sick, twisted, products of the leftist anti-everything-decent agenda. They had no connections to law-abiding gun owners, and their behavior was representative only of the nihlist leftists, who twisted the story to their own political benefit.
You can google search for "columbine" and "freerepublic" and find the many threads where this information was gathered and posted along with the media spin.
Right. And if cows had wings we'd all run around wearing helmets.
but the airline ultimately has the right to set policy, it's a private enterprise,
HorseHillary. The airlines are all servants to the FAA,who has the absolute authority to put them out of business any time they want by denying them the right to take off or land at any airport. About the only thing the airlines are allowed to make a decision on is when to go bankrupt. They aren't even allowed to decide where they can or can not fly without FAA approval.
and should the airline decide that no one carries you are left with the choice of leavin your gun, or flying someone else.
You might as well have written,"Once up a time...",because the feral gooberment ain't going to allow them to do squat.
I knew what you were doing,I was just adding my own comments.
The kinky posters aren't too unusual. After all,he was a teenager. You would think the bomb factory would be a good first clue that things weren't going well,wouldn't you?
It's a combination. Before I was a teenager I had a bomb factory. Kid's like fireworks and it was legal. The old man just cautioned to use paper, not glass, so no one would get hurt. I also had a strong love of Freedom and an extreme dislike(hatred) for nazis , communists and criminals. This kid's old man was an airhead and so was his teachers for ignoring his school presentations.
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.