In Case You Missed It
Boulderganic Fall 2009
Student Guide 2009
Boulder Weekly Sweet 16 Anniversary
Summer Scene 2009
Best of Boulder 2009
Annual Manual 2009
Newspaper of the Future
Kids Camp Guide 2009
Wedding Marketplace 09
Student Guide 2008
Best of Boulder 2008
Annual Manual 2008
Join Our Mailing List
|July 2 - July 8, 2009
• See cover story part II
• Second-guessing the Second Amendment
• Reasonable restrictions
• The liberal argument for gun ownership
Second-guessing the Second Amendment
Every year, Boulder Weekly likes to celebrate the Fourth of July by taking a look at an issue that’s important to all of us as Americans. In 2007, we asked the question, “What would the Founders think of George Bush’s America?” Last year, we asked people what patriotism meant to them. This year, we’re taking a look at the Second Amendment, one of the more controversial components of the Bill of Rights. We’re asking whether there’s a liberal argument for individual gun ownership and looking at what the Second Amendment means to us today. We’re also offering our readers a chance to test their knowledge about their rights, as well as an opportunity to learn more about the Bill of Rights, one of the most important documents in human history.
We hope you find our special cover package thought provoking and compelling, regardless of whether you’re a gun-control activist or a member of the NRA.
back to top
Gun control doesn’t necessarily infringe on Second Amendment rights
by Tom Mauser
America has a shamefully high level of gun violence — the highest rate in the Free World, by far. Recently we’ve seen a spate of tragic shootings — involving a nursing home, churches and even armed children.
We find ourselves asking, “How did that person get hold of a gun?” The reality is that with such weak gun laws, it’s easy for the wrong people to access firearms and do untold damage. But any time an attempt is made to regulate access to guns, the gun lobby insists that such attempts are an infringement of the Second Amendment, regardless of merit. What does the Second Amendment say? “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” This nation still struggles today with the interpretation of those words, from the odd punctuation to the conflict between the words “well regulated” and “shall not be infringed” to the current context of “militia.”
The gun lobby would prefer to talk about the Second Amendment as if it conveyed an absolute, unquestionable, individual right. Gun activists celebrated in 2008 when the Supreme Court, in Heller vs. District of Columbia, struck down a very restrictive gun law, ruling that the Second Amendment conveys an individual right to bear arms, not a collective right conveyed to the states.
The Heller ruling was no surprise, given the conservative majority on the Court. The ruling probably confirmed the opinion of most Americans — polls show that a majority support a basic individual right to bear arms.
But polls also show that most Americans support restrictions on those rights. Much to the dismay of gun extremists, the Supreme Court agreed with them, ruling in Heller that, like most rights, “the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” The Court also went on to support other gun restrictions.
That’s the way it should be. We can agree that laws can go too far, but we accept that reasonable restrictions on our rights are needed for the good of all. We just need to agree on what’s reasonable. That’s what we did in Colorado in 2000. I was spokesman for the successful campaign to pass Amendment 22, the initiative that closed the gun-show loophole in Colorado, requiring that all gun purchases at a gun show be subject to a background check.
During the campaign, opponents of Amendment 22 insisted it was a violation of their Second Amendment rights and would destroy gun shows. My response was simple: “How does this infringe on your rights? If you’re a law-abiding citizen, you pass the background check, and you’re able to purchase a firearm, where’s the infringement?”
The voters agreed. Amendment 22 passed, with a yes vote of 70 percent. Nine years have passed, and thousands of people who failed a background check have been unable to buy firearms at gun shows. And despite the doomsday predictions, gun shows are still operating.
Every time a gun-control measure is proposed, the gun lobby is quick to declare that it cannot possibly be passed because it is an infringement on their Second Amendment rights. Rather than discuss the merits, they want to dismiss the measure offhand. Most Americans know better. Each measure should be weighed and considered, and, yes, infringement should be one of those considerations. But so, too, must be our collective safety and the need to keep firearms out of the hands of felons, violent people, fugitives, minors, spouse abusers and the mentally disturbed.
The gun lobby tells us we need unlimited access to firearms to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government, just as our forefathers wanted. Our forefathers didn’t want a repeat of the repression of a tyrannical British colonial government in an agrarian society.
Let’s get real here. We need laws that reflect our times. We are no longer an agrarian society and are far from our colonial roots, and are now the leader of the Free World. It is ludicrous to think that some tyrannical force is going to take control of the most powerful military force in the world and attempt to confiscate 250 million civilian guns in order to avoid engaging in hand-to-hand, door-to-door combat with American citizens.
The gun lobby tells us we need unlimited access to firearms to protect ourselves in our homes. But it is that unlimited access to firearms that has endangered us, creating a gun-based domestic terrorism that takes nearly 11,000 lives each year.
We need to keep the Second Amendment within today’s context. We ought to honor the basic guidance of our forefathers but put it in a modern perspective, just as we have done with slavery, voting rights and business regulation.
Tom Mauser is a spokesman and board member for Colorado Ceasefire and the father of Columbine High School shooting victim Daniel Mauser.
back to top
The liberal argument for gun ownership
by David Kopel
Should liberals respect the constitutional right to keep and bear arms? The answer is plainly “yes,” especially if liberals adhere to their traditional best principles of tolerance and diversity, and of respect for civil liberties under a living Constitution.
In this regard, Democratic Sen. Mark Udall has been setting a good example. As a lifelong Democrat who has voted for Udall again and again, I was impressed by his strong stance on civil liberties, including his courageous vote in 2001 against the misnamed PATRIOT Act. In the U.S. House, Udall’s record on Second Amendment rights had been mixed, but, as he explained, he began to re-evaluate his understanding of this issue after the 2007 decision by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that the Second Amendment really does guarantee a meaningful individual right. That decision was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2008 case, District of Columbia v. Heller.
In the half-year that Udall has served as U.S. Senator, he has compiled a strong record on Second Amendment issues. He voted for an amendment to stop the practice of Amtrak (the federally subsidized railroad), which prevented passengers from transporting unloaded firearms in their checked luggage.
Since the Constitution gives Congress plenary authority over the District of Columbia, Sen. Udall also voted to repeal various abusive gun laws in D.C. At present, D.C.’s licensing and registration process for handgun owners is even more cumbersome and obstructive than that of New York City.
In addition, Udall voted for another amendment, which says that national parks will follow the same policy regarding firearms as their host state. So, for example, in Colorado, if you go camping deep in the outback of a Colorado State Park, state law says that you can carry a concealed handgun for protection from violent criminals or hungry carnivores — provided that you have obtained a permit, which requires a fingerprint-based background check, plus passing a safety class. Now, thanks in part to Sen. Udall, the same rule will apply in Colorado’s national parks, such as Rocky Mountain National Park, starting next February.
Sen. Michael Bennett, by the way, voted the same way on all these measures.
The Udall/Bennett approach makes perfect sense for genuinely liberal Democrats. After all, the party itself was founded by James Madison, who wrote the Second Amendment, and by Thomas Jefferson, a strong advocate for all the Bill of Rights, including the right to arms.
Today, many liberals are not concerned with the original meaning of the Constitution. Instead, they favor a “living Constitution,” by which constitutional standards reflect modern conditions and evolving standards of the American public. By this standard, the right to arms is especially important.
Since 1963, the people of Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia and Wisconsin have chosen, either through their legislature or through a direct vote, to add a right to arms to their state constitution, to re-adopt the right to arms or to strengthen an existing right.
In every state where the people have had the opportunity to vote directly, they have voted for the right to arms by overwhelming margins. For example, in 1998 liberal Wisconsin adopted an arms-right guarantee by a vote of 1,205,873 to 425,052.
Thus, the American people continue to reject that notion that the right to arms is “obsolete” and should be ignored. Even before the Heller decision was announced, the Gallup Poll found that 73 percent of Americans believed that the Constitution guaranteed an individual, non-militia right to arms. A 2009 Gallup Poll found that support for banning handguns had dropped to only 29 percent — the lowest level since Gallup began polling the issue half a century ago.
Hurricane Katrina provided a vivid reminder that in an emergency, you cannot always count on the government for protection. In the days after the hurricane hit, the incompetent federal, state and local governments did nothing to protect the good people of New Orleans from rampaging looters and murderers. Instead, the administrations of New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin and President George Bush teamed up to send armed officers house to house to break into homes and confiscate firearms.
As a federal court later ruled, the Bush-Nagin gun confiscation was totally illegal. Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and Colorado Sen. Ken Salazar were among the many liberals who voted for a reform so that the federal government — and any local law enforcement agency that gets federal funds — will never again perpetrate such an atrocity.
Liberalism at its best embraces tolerance and diversity. So, for example, a tolerant liberal would recognize the conscience rights of religious pacifists not to be drafted into combat and their right to choose not to use a firearm to protect themselves. At the same time, tolerant liberals would resist the efforts of “pacifist-aggressives” who want to impose their own anti-self-defense morality on everyone else.
Indeed, if you favor choice, you can’t coherently oppose the right to arms. In the article Principles and Passions: The Intersection of Abortion and Gun Rights, Fordham law professor Nicholas Johnson shows that all the pro-choice arguments in favor of a right to abortion can be applied, even more strongly, to the right of armed self-defense. If a woman can make a momentous decision about controlling her own womb, she can make the decision to protect her family from a violent criminal intruder. Other people have the right to express moral disapproval of her self-defense decision, but not to criminalize it.
Today’s Democratic majorities in Congress and the Colorado legislature would not exist if Democrats from the Rocky Mountains states, and most of the rest of the country, were still stuck with the culture wars of the 1990s. Back then, narrow-minded cultural elites from the northeast and California tried to use the Democratic Party to impose their narrow-minded, anti-gun biases on the rest of the country.
Today’s liberal, strongly pro-Second Amendment Democrats — such as New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer, and Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal — are carrying on the tradition of the man who is one of the Founders of modern liberalism, the great Democratic Senator and Vice-President Hubert Humphrey. As Humphrey put it: “Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used and that definite rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of the citizen to bear arms is just one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.”
Soon, the Senate may be voting on a new civil rights measure. Pro-GLBT, pro-Second Amendment advocates, such as Pink Pistols, are pushing for a bill to stop gay bashing before it starts. The bill would simply say that a concealed handgun carry permit issued by one state would be valid in the other 47 states that allow concealed carry. So, for example, a gay person from Denver who has a Colorado permit to carry a concealed handgun for lawful protection could carry that same handgun when he visits California or Mississippi.
It’s a dangerous bill — from the point of view of gay bashers and other violent criminals.
Dave Kopel is Research Director of the Independence Institute, and co-author of the law school textbook Gun Control and Gun Rights (NYU Press).
back to top
back to top