Ed Straker
Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2003
- Messages
- 189
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 [email protected].
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 [email protected].
