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.

[avg_freeper]

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.

I have a response too. I'd ask him if the South American Spotted lemur should be allowed to ride a motorcycle after dusk without the proper reflective clothing.

And then while he's pondering the ramifications of antagonizing the National Association for the Advancement of Lemurs I'd whack him over the head with my shoe and run off to revel in my superior use of logic.

[Squantos]

Same bunch of BS I heard old Robert Redford squealing about last month. He's concerned about his constitutional freedoms being erroded . The bill of rights and the constitution "were" a blueprint, a foundation, not to be tampered with or perceived as a evolving document to fit the emotions of the masses at the moment.

Thus in my understanding the reason we "are" a Republic and not a democracy.....

The idiots who stand for one part of the bill of rights that fits their own personal needs and spits on the others are shocked when the precident is established by the BS socialism they support. Now when it's incrementalism creeps up on them they are angered and amazed.......PHUCEM !....... And the Horse they road in on !

Stay Safe Eaker !

[Badray]

"I've always wondered what would happen if you yelled 'Movie!' in a crowded fire station..."

That's easy. The firemen assigned to cooking duty would start to make popcorn.

[Badray]

That is what I was trying to say, but you made the point much clearer than I did. Thanks.

[BOOTSTICK]

The right of the Militia to be armed is absolute, and the Militia may use any weapon at it's discrection. As far as "carry" laws go, they can all follow the Florida law or several other states that have CCW laws, the issue is a no brainer.

[Redcloak]

This is a tad confusing. Am I to understand that he's saying that I have the absolute right to bring a Brown Bess aboard a commercial aircraft?

[Badray]

". . .excuse my rant...."

No excuses needed. I welcome your rants and look forward to them. Keep 'em coming.

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

shall    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (shl)
aux.v. past tense should (shd)

1. Used before a verb in the infinitive to show:
   1. Something that will take place or exist in the future: We shall arrive tomorrow.
   2. Something, such as an order, promise, requirement, or obligation: You shall leave now. He shall answer for his misdeeds. The penalty shall not exceed two years in prison.
   3. The will to do something or have something take place: I shall go out if I feel like it.
   4. Something that is inevitable: That day shall come.
2. Archaic.
   1. To be able to.
   2. To have to; must.

not    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (nt)
adv.

In no way; to no degree. Used to express negation, denial, refusal, or prohibition: I will not go. You may not have any.

be    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (b)
v. First and third person singular past indicative was, (wz, wz; wz when unstressed)second person singular and plural and first and third person plural past indicative were, (wûr)past subjunctive were,past participle been, (bn)present participle be·ing, (bng)first person singular present indicative am, (m)second person singular and plural and first and third person plural present indicative are, (är)third person singular present indicative is, (z)present subjunctive be
v. intr.

1. To exist in actuality; have life or reality: I think, therefore I am.
2. 1. To occupy a specified position: The food is on the table.
   2. To remain in a certain state or situation undisturbed, untouched, or unmolested: Let the children be.
3. To take place; occur: The test was yesterday.
4. To go or come: Have you ever been to Italy? Have you been home recently?
5. Used as a copula in such senses as:
   1. To equal in identity: “To be a Christian was to be a Roman” (James Bryce).
   2. To have a specified significance: A is excellent, C is passing. Let n be the unknown quantity.
   3. To belong to a specified class or group: The human being is a primate.
   4. To have or show a specified quality or characteristic: She is witty. All humans are mortal.
   5. To seem to consist or be made of: The yard is all snow. He is all bluff and no bite.
6. To belong; befall: Peace be unto you. Woe is me.

in·fringe    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (n-frnj)
v. in·fringed, in·fring·ing, in·fring·es
v. tr.

1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent.
2. Obsolete. To defeat; invalidate.

v. intr.

To encroach on someone or something; engage in trespassing: an increased workload that infringed on his personal life.

[Joe Brower]

This guy sounds like one of those liberal pinheads who likes to woo people with phrases like "You have the right not to get shot", as if that were something that could be garuanteed by government decree. Typical liberal needledick who tries to talk out of both sides of his face.

[Travis McGee]

Good rant! And I like what you said about fire in the theater, I'm going to remember to use that.

[Travis McGee]

BLOAT!

[Cultural Jihad]

To that extent, I should be able to own and use firearms and other waepons similar those used by the government.

LOL! Thanks for the chuckle, O fantasy ideologue!

[Cultural Jihad]

It's a shame that prisoners can't pack heat in order to protect themselves in jail. The same sad infringement exists for mental incompetents and proven felons on parole.

[Travis McGee]

I know! Why is this so hard for sheeple to understand?

[BikerTrash]

"... but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons."

So all that is needed here is a pre-emption law to keep cities and counties from screwing with open carry. And we shouldn't even need that, because that's already in the Constitution.

Open carry is better, anyway. The advantages of an armed populace are amplified with open carry, the drawbacks are subdued, and on a personal level open carry is handier, quicker and safer.

Of course, the property right of posting a "no guns" sign is allowed, (would, could and should apply to schools, banks, bars, etc.).

The Framers had it exactly right.

[BenR2]

LOL! Thanks for the chuckle, O fantasy ideologue!

/ / / / /

Your ad hominem "rebuttal" makes no effort to refute his statement of the facts.

You have a Constitutional refutation of the man's assertion that he should be able to own weapons comparable to the Government's per the Second Amendment?

[Cultural Jihad]

We should privatize nuclear weapons. It explicitly says so somewhere in the 2nd Amendment penumbra. (sheesh)

[BenR2]

We should privatize nuclear weapons. It explicitly says so somewhere in the 2nd Amendment penumbra. (sheesh)

Leaving nukes out of it, for now: Most people focus on things like "assault weapons" of various flavors. Can you give me any Constitutional reason why I should not be permitted to own, say, a military version M-16 (without all the extra paperwork now required for the select few civilians who do)?

[Cultural Jihad]

Can you give me any Constitutional reason why I should not be permitted to own, say, a military version M-16...

Since I don't live in Texas I don't have any right to decide how the good people of Texas choose to self-govern themselves there. 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.

[Senator Pardek]

Since I don't live in Texas I don't have any right to decide how the good people of Texas choose to self-govern themselves there unless it involves medical marijuana.