This editorial is unsigned (with good reason).
You can contact these worthies at: conantc@thedailycamera.com (executive editor and publisher)
The sky won't fall
A small subset of the gun rights community exposes its "sky is falling" mentality any time legislators or citizens seek to enact gun control measures, no matter how modest.
They claim first that the Second Amendment says no restrictions on gun ownership are acceptable. By that logic, every citizen should have free access to machine guns, bazookas, laser-guided missiles and, what the heck, nuclear weapons.
Next they resort to "slippery slope" arguments: Each new law chips away at the edifice that is our right to bear arms, and if this goes on, we'll undoubtedly end up with government confiscation of all personal weapons, they say.
But oddly, when limited laws — for instance, the federal Brady Bill waiting period (never mind their efficacy, or lack thereof) — do pass, the gun rights lobby seldom mounts a vigorous attempt to see them overturned in court. When they do, they tend to lose.
That's because the courts, in general, have upheld such laws as reasonable restrictions on our right to bear arms.
Which explains why gun advocates to the right of the National Rifle Association fought so hard this summer and fall to prevent Colorado citizens from even voting on Amendment 22, which would close the "gun show loophole" by requiring all vendors at such shows — not just those holding federal licenses, as currently required — to conduct background checks before a sale.
The gun rights Chicken Littles' panic is understandable: The public is likely to approve this sensible measure, and once approved, it is unlikely that it will be overturned in court.
We'll give this to those who oppose the measure: It wouldn't have stopped the massacre at Columbine High School last year — the young woman who bought guns for killers Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold was over 18 and had a clean record — and criminals intent on buying a weapon will get one on the street if they can't do their one-stop, convenient shopping at a gun show.
Nevertheless, Amendment 22 truly is about common sense. Those who have attended gun shows have seen the kind of egregious behavior that goes on: Some dealers (or "collectors," as they prefer to call themselves) without federal permits openly advertise the fact that buyers don't have to go through a background check.
To us, that's direct marketing not just to law-abiding gun owners reasonably concerned about their right to privacy, but also to criminals who shouldn't be buying weapons. And if Amendment 22 merely makes it less convenient for even one criminal to buy a gun, it's worth it.
Gun rights advocates also claim that the amendment is an erosion of their First Amendment right to free assembly, since, as one opposition group put it, "Gun shows are also political gatherings."
Well, OK, political gatherings they may be. But absolutely nothing in Amendment 22 would prevent gun rights advocates from assembling in crowds from three to 3,000. It simply requires that if they are transferring firearms at such gatherings, the transaction can't go forward without a background check.
For these reasons, such wild-eyed anti-gun liberals as GOP Gov. Bill Owens and decorated Vietnam veteran U.S. Sen. John McCain have joined with groups calling for more extreme measures — such as handgun registration — in supporting Amendment 22.
This is one restriction on which the two sides can agree, and the fact that the far-right fringe groups are crying wolf says much about their paranoia, but little about this proposal.
Because it's fair, common sensical and constitutional, we urge a Yes vote on Amendment 22.
Copyright 2000 The Daily Camera.
You can contact these worthies at: conantc@thedailycamera.com (executive editor and publisher)
The sky won't fall
A small subset of the gun rights community exposes its "sky is falling" mentality any time legislators or citizens seek to enact gun control measures, no matter how modest.
They claim first that the Second Amendment says no restrictions on gun ownership are acceptable. By that logic, every citizen should have free access to machine guns, bazookas, laser-guided missiles and, what the heck, nuclear weapons.
Next they resort to "slippery slope" arguments: Each new law chips away at the edifice that is our right to bear arms, and if this goes on, we'll undoubtedly end up with government confiscation of all personal weapons, they say.
But oddly, when limited laws — for instance, the federal Brady Bill waiting period (never mind their efficacy, or lack thereof) — do pass, the gun rights lobby seldom mounts a vigorous attempt to see them overturned in court. When they do, they tend to lose.
That's because the courts, in general, have upheld such laws as reasonable restrictions on our right to bear arms.
Which explains why gun advocates to the right of the National Rifle Association fought so hard this summer and fall to prevent Colorado citizens from even voting on Amendment 22, which would close the "gun show loophole" by requiring all vendors at such shows — not just those holding federal licenses, as currently required — to conduct background checks before a sale.
The gun rights Chicken Littles' panic is understandable: The public is likely to approve this sensible measure, and once approved, it is unlikely that it will be overturned in court.
We'll give this to those who oppose the measure: It wouldn't have stopped the massacre at Columbine High School last year — the young woman who bought guns for killers Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold was over 18 and had a clean record — and criminals intent on buying a weapon will get one on the street if they can't do their one-stop, convenient shopping at a gun show.
Nevertheless, Amendment 22 truly is about common sense. Those who have attended gun shows have seen the kind of egregious behavior that goes on: Some dealers (or "collectors," as they prefer to call themselves) without federal permits openly advertise the fact that buyers don't have to go through a background check.
To us, that's direct marketing not just to law-abiding gun owners reasonably concerned about their right to privacy, but also to criminals who shouldn't be buying weapons. And if Amendment 22 merely makes it less convenient for even one criminal to buy a gun, it's worth it.
Gun rights advocates also claim that the amendment is an erosion of their First Amendment right to free assembly, since, as one opposition group put it, "Gun shows are also political gatherings."
Well, OK, political gatherings they may be. But absolutely nothing in Amendment 22 would prevent gun rights advocates from assembling in crowds from three to 3,000. It simply requires that if they are transferring firearms at such gatherings, the transaction can't go forward without a background check.
For these reasons, such wild-eyed anti-gun liberals as GOP Gov. Bill Owens and decorated Vietnam veteran U.S. Sen. John McCain have joined with groups calling for more extreme measures — such as handgun registration — in supporting Amendment 22.
This is one restriction on which the two sides can agree, and the fact that the far-right fringe groups are crying wolf says much about their paranoia, but little about this proposal.
Because it's fair, common sensical and constitutional, we urge a Yes vote on Amendment 22.
Copyright 2000 The Daily Camera.
