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.
Hard rain's gonna fall.
As the 20th century demonstrated, there is no bigger "lunatic" that the almighty state. I'd rather have a million lunatics with guns than live in a country where none of the people had guns.
How many Columbines will it take before people realize the 2nd ammendment doesn't make sense anymore??
Whether or not the 2nd amendment "makes sense" to you is irrelevant. It is the law of the land, and can only be repealed by a Constitutional amendment. Those who propose changing the Constitution illegally qualify as "domestic enemies of the Constitution" and should be dealt with as such.
Furthermore, even if the 2nd amendment were repealed tomorrow, I (and every other man and woman) would still have the Right to keep and bear arms.
As long as I'm alive, I will not be disarmed. Period.
Would your theory of "states rights" apply if a Boss Hogg mayor in Smalltown, Alabama enacted a law forcing certain folks to sit in the back of a bus?
You mean a disgruntled air marshall?
Either way, I don't have to worry about it since I simply refuse to fly unless I'm armed.
Interesting thought there. People (some people that is) are already allowed to carry guns on airplanes. Either he thinks Federal LEOs are not "people" or he holds the old "Animal Farm" view that some people are more equal than others.
I can answer his question quite easily and not compromise safety nor anyone's rights. It is that there should be no law forbidding people from carrying guns on airplanes. If the private owners of the airlines wish to forbid their passengers from carrying as a condition of boarding than I have no problem with them imposing such a rule. Those who wish to fly armed can fly on the airlines that permit it, those that wish to fly unarmed can fly on those airlines that forbid it. It's simple. Private property rules prevail and government does not stick its nose where it doesn't belong.
Even opponents of the Second Amendment will discount your posts until you learn how to spell "amendment."
There is no amendment more vital than the Second Amendment. Its vitality scares the birkenstocks off the pointy-head liberals.
It will certainly get interesting if patriotic Americans start voting from 300 yards away. I hope it doesn't come to that, but the tyrants seem hell-bent on bringing about a confrontation.
Once it comes to that, the only option for our side is simply to win.
I've got no problem with the airlines imposing such rules themselves. I do object to a government entity stepping in and making a law to effect the same outcome.
The right to bear arms was clearly intended for the able bodied and mentally competent. The Amendment addressed the issue of both national defense and the guaranteee that the government would not attempt to erode Constitutional liberties. In any just government, the adminstration of these guarantees reasonably allows for some interpretation and common sense.
For instance, the right to "bear arms" might reasonably be construed to extent to automatic weapons, but not to atomic weapons. It may be reasonable to own a cannon, but does the right to bear arms mean that you can have your own fleet of battleships? or guided missile destroyers?
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.