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.
Do they think society is improved when the citizens are disarmed and there are drug gangs in existence?
I don't even know why I am asking this question because we know the answer. The anti's hate guns and it has nothing to do with crime or accidents.
Would 911 have ever happened if the passengers were armed?
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?
Sure.
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.
Just what changes exactly?
If he "has to play with it?, he's not merely bearing arms is he?
The issue is not bearing arms, it is what one nimrod does with such that is the crux of law. Such activity as "playing" with live grenades is appropriately covered in law as a public menace without violating the right to bear arms. Laws regarding attempted murder in no way intrudes upon the Right to "Bear" or own weapon for their proper purpose as laid out in the Colorado Constitution:
"in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned"
Well, here's the crux of the leftist arguments!
"My view of 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 numbers are easily accessible, but he doesn't believe, therefore the "statistical argument is a wash," i.e. "I don't agree with the numbers, so I'll just ignore them, and try to get everyone to dismiss them."
Mark
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."
Yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theatre is not unconstitutional.
It is the *consequence* of yelling fire in a crowded theatre that may call into question a legal decision.
Consequence 1: If *there is indeed a fire* in the theatre, the calling out of such is obligatory.
Consequence 2: If there is no fire and the yelling *does not provoke any response* from a crowd then the legality of the consequence is moot.
Consequence 3: If there is no fire and the yelling *provokes a panic*, then the legality is not concerned with a 1st amendment issue, it is concerned with disrupting commerce between theatre business owner and their paying customers. There could also be claims of physical damages and health problems due to the *panic*, not the yelling but the panic.
It is important here to be precise. This is not splitting hairs. To reiterate, it is absolutely legal to yell fire in a crowded theatre. Exercising our 1st Amendment right does not absolve us of the *consequences* of our exercise.
This may be one of the dumber things that I've read in recent weeks. Does this mean that since the Founding Fathers couldn't forsee the technological advances, then the protections of the Bill of Rights shouldn't be extended to the new devices? So the First Amendment shouldn't be extended to radio, tv, or the Internet?
And I'd like to mention here that he's talking about two bills that will allow law abiding citizens to legally carry concealed handguns. But he mentions that "drug gangs" are already using them, I believe in defiance of existing law. So maybe he could answer a simple question: How will passing a law that allows NON-CRIMINALS to legally carry concealed handguns increase the number of criminals who carry handguns illegally?
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.
Are you sure that you want to make that case? How about the suspension of Habeus Corpus. How about the government shutting down "oposition press." In times of civil unrest, a VOCAL MINORITY might support the government's doing this sort of thing... Are you sure you want to assert that the rights protected by the Bill of Rights should not be "absolute?"
Mark
Old Oliver and this polidiot are incorrect again. If there is a fire I have every right to yell fire thus in the exercise of free speech comes trust and responsibility to use it correctly. Just as my right to keep and bear arms the constitution says "shall not be infringed" thus that same trust "must be extended to each and every citizen until they "individually" are proven to be untrustworthy. Key on individually verses the collective cloud of guilt currently over the heads of all law abidding citizens who know that a 1911 .45ACP is better, faster and more efficent than a 911 phone call followed by the recording ....."please hold for the next available operator" anyday.
This incremental BS was highlighted in the thread on FR yesterday about the polidiots, presstitutes and their money mongers having armed protective details and armored transport. Those same POS elitist socialist SOB's are fighting to keep you a victim but in reality they know what the 2nd Amendment says and means thus they placate the masses with a concealed handgun law as both a source of revenue by selling us our RKBA and slowing down the inevitable day in court at the SCOTUS.
That day may never come as the right of some freak to molest children or the sick art of robert mapelthorps aka bullwhip hanging out of his ass, are priority in the SCOTUS versus the right to self defense and the 2nd amendment..........Arggggggggh !
Join the GOA, NRA, Liberty Bells, Second Amendment Sisters, your individual states rifle associations , Mothers in arms and JPFO today ! No matter what one thinks of one group or the other they are tools. Tools to be applied to the socialist trash who think the constitution is something to use as a doormat......Fight back now with a soapbox, jury box and ballot box before the ammo box is opened.
Stay Safe Travis, excuse my rant....
One of my favorite scenes is when Della escorts a young woman into Perry's office and she sits down and asks, "I need a lawyer - - are you expensive?"
Perry replies, "Very."
Put yourself in a position of accountability for airline and passenger safety. Is this your best answer? If so, what guidelines would you install?
It gets real touchy here, IMO. The fedgov should not be restricting citizens bearing arms. The airlines, otoh, may do so at will. After having spent much of the last year in the air, I'm not as comfortable with the idea of many or most of the passengers carrying without restiction as I once was. Like most other people, I trust myself more than I trust 90% of the rest of the population. But that 10% that I trust will not likely populate the flights that I take.
I hadn't watched in many years and was surprised just how good the show is. BTW Erle Stanley Gardner was a firearms enthusiast and some of the early shows which were taken directly from the books have quite a bit of firearms info in them. I once read an article in either "Sports Afield" or "Outdoor Life" by Gardner on survival with a .22 revolver.
Perhaps you would be so kind as to enumerate the ones that you do “give a rip about” so that we sheep can adjust our thinking to more closely match yours. I did not know that it was a “pick your favorite and screw the rest” kind of thing.
Silly, 911 happened because some of the passengers WERE armed.
The law-abiding passengers were illegally UNARMED. Further, the advice from the government has been to cooperate with the bad guys. Great policies and great advice.
I checked your FReep page and you are asking others to support the First Amendment and are now damning the Second Amendment. What a hypocrite.
Stay safe; stay armed.
Eaker Freeper Status
"The Era of Osama lasted about an hour, from the time the first plane hit the tower to the moment the General Militia of Flight 93 reported for duty."
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.