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.

[Travis McGee]

I agree, that's why I support Prop 223.

[Travis McGee]

Thanks.

[sneakypete]

It's a combination. Before I was a teenager I had a bomb factory.

In the interest of full-disclosure,I made my own black powder by buying the ingredients at a drug store when I was about 8 or 9. I didn't try to make a bomb,though. I was content to just set it on fire to see that it worked. I DID make my own 22 caliber zip gun out of a car antenna,though. It shot,too. I must have been about 10 by then.

[thisiskubrick]

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.

Well, you raise some good points here. They were definitely nihilists and "anti-everything" as you say. You win.

[thisiskubrick]

Deep thinking like that goes a long ways towards explaining why your screen mame reminds you of who you are.

You don't like Stanley Kubrick??

[Luis Gonzalez]

Pete, try to follow the words. Perhaps I can make myself clearer, and rather than saying "the FAA may lift the ban on carrying on board, but the airline ultimately has the right to set policy, it's a private enterprise, and should the airline decide that no one carries you are left with the choice of leavin your gun, or flying someone else", I'll try petespeak instead:

If the gooberment lifted the regs not allowing you to take your piece with you, the airlines can still be horse's asses about it and say "no way José" to your God-given constitutional right. And since it is their plane, you can either leave the piece home, or shag your butt to some other airline.

[sneakypete]

Yeah,and if frogs had wings they wouldn't keep bumping their asses.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Pete, the point is that the Second Amendment is not absolute, and that private businesses can stop you from being on their property whle carrying a gun.

An individual can also refuse to allow you to enter their home while carrying a weapon.

If the FAA lifted the ban on passengers carrying a weapon on board a flight, but American Airlines said that in spite of the ban being lifted, they would not allow passengers carrying guns to board their planes, you will not get on their planes.

End of story.

That's my point about the right to bear arms not being absolute.

[sneakypete]

Pete, the point is that the Second Amendment is not absolute, and that private businesses can stop you from being on their property whle carrying a gun.

Absolutely! A private business should also have the right to hire or not hire anybody they want,and to admit or refuse admittance to anybody they want.

On the other hand,the airlines are a PUBLIC business. They provide a essential service to the public. They are even subsidized by the feral gooberment to a certain extent. This all puts them in a quasi-government agency catagory,much like universities. Public businesses do NOT have the Constitutional right to deny the public their rights under the Constitution. For instance,if they got together and decided to deny ticket sales to Cuban Americans or American Indians,you and I would not be able to fly. That is much more serious than not being allowed inside certain bars or restaurants.

An individual can also refuse to allow you to enter their home while carrying a weapon.

You betcha! "A man's home is his castle",and all that.

If the FAA lifted the ban on passengers carrying a weapon on board a flight, but American Airlines said that in spite of the ban being lifted, they would not allow passengers carrying guns to board their planes, you will not get on their planes.

That all a theory,and it's totally irrelevant because the FAA is never going to lift the ban,

[Luis Gonzalez]

"For instance,if they got together and decided to deny ticket sales to Cuban Americans or American Indians,you and I would not be able to fly."

They wouldn't be able to discriminately not allow people on board based on that sort of criteria, but they CAN impose their own safety rules, and regardless of Federal financing or not, they can still deny you access to their planes if you carried a weapon. They are responsible for the safety procedures, and whether you believe that safety is improved by having armed passengers it wouldn't really matter, they have the last word because they assume liability for all passengers on the flight.

That may have been all a theory, but theoretical situations were the topic at hand.

[Destructor]

"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 lame old argument. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre could cause people to panic, thereby creating a danger to everyone in the theatre. By the same token no one should be allowed to walk down the street firing a gun up in the air.

This provision of the Law does not justify government infringing on an individual's exercise of their Second Amendment Rights by banning ownership of certain types of firearms that politicians don't like.

[sneakypete]

They wouldn't be able to discriminately not allow people on board based on that sort of criteria, but they CAN impose their own safety rules, and regardless of Federal financing or not, they can still deny you access to their planes if you carried a weapon.

ONLY because the courts would refuse to hear it if anybody brought a lawsuit against them for denying them their Constitutional rights. If it's ok to deny any US citizenship their Constitutional right to be in possession of a weapon in public,it's ok to deny them the right to ride in your airplane because you don't like their accent or their color. Since the second set of circumstances is clearly illegal,so are the first.

To take this further,IF the Constitution were TRULY being followed,and private establishment SHOULD have the right to descriminate against anybody they want,at any time,for any reason. Of course,unlike denying citizens 2nd Amendment rights,enforcing their right to freedom of association isn't PC.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"If it's ok to deny any US citizenship their Constitutional right to be in possession of a weapon in public,it's ok to deny them the right to ride in your airplane because you don't like their accent or their color.

Wrong.

Carrying a weapon is a choice, you can decide not to carry one if need be. You can't change you skin color, unless you're Michael Jackson that is.

[sneakypete]

Carrying a weapon is a choice,

So is admitting someone to your private club or business. None the less,both are protected Constitutional rights. Or SHOULD be.

you can decide not to carry one if need be.

Yes,but the public doesn't get to decide that FOR you. This is YOUR choice.

You can't change you skin color, unless you're Michael Jackson that is.

Who said anything about the customer banning himself? Unless you are saying that a black owner has the right to deny admittance to his private property to someone because they are white,Indian,Cuban,or anything else. If this is what you are saying,I agree with you.

The OWNER/proprieter of a business,club,or other non-public dwelling or property is the one who should get to decide.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Pete, last word.

Your second amendment right does not extend itself to private property. An airplane is private property, if the airline that owns the plane sets a policy of no weapons on board, (and for the sake of this argument, this has nothing to do with the FAA) then tough crap...you can't board with a gun.

And no constitutional argument that you may want to make will change that.

Good night.

[Poohbah]

I will explain it this way: I make the decision as to who carries and who doesn't carry on my property.

You would be in the latter category, since you seem to not understand other people's property rights.

[Jhoffa_]

Unless you are saying that a black owner has the right to deny admittance to his private property to someone because they are white,Indian,Cuban,or anything else. If this is what you are saying,I agree with you.

I personally have no problem with that..

I would allow business owners to discriminate on whatever basis they please, and THEN pay the price in our free market.

[anono_bod]

I will explain it this way: I make the decision as to who carries and who doesn't carry on my property.
You would be in the latter category, since you seem to not understand other people's property rights.
poohbah

______________________________________


In a truly constitutonal RKBA society, the entire nation would uphold the right as does, [or did] the State of New Hampshire. Anyone could carry concealed at any time anywhere.
Thus, there would be no real basis or reason to search anyone coming onto your property for weapons, or for any other reason.
This would also apply to relativily 'unregulated' airlines, as sneakyypete noted ours once were.

[Luis Gonzalez]

The only real basis that I would need in order to justify my searching anyone wanting to enter my property for a weapon, is just that I wanted to.

It's my property, and if I so desire to search anyone before entering, I'll do so.

If you object to being searched, then you don't have to come on to my property.