As readers of this blog know, I’m a pretty rabid civil libertarian. But even I know that my right to free speech doesn’t mean I can stomp into your living room to harangue you. My right to free exercise of religion doesn’t include the right to impose that religion on students in my public university classroom. My right to petition my government for a redress of grievances doesn’t translate into a right to march into the legislature when it is in session and disrupt the proceedings.
In other words, the exercise of my rights is conditioned upon my willingness to respect the equal rights of others.
Granted, that little caveat is widely ignored by citizens who are absolutely convinced that they and they alone are in possession of Truth that must be imposed upon others despite the fact that those others may have Truths of their own. Nevertheless, respect for the equal rights of others is a foundational premise of our legal/constitutional system.
Those for whom the Second Amendment is less a statement of rights than a religion just don’t get that. They seem to believe that the Second Amendment trumps all the other provisions of the Bill of Rights. A couple of years ago, the Indiana legislature blithely ignored the rights of employers to determine what safety measures they would require, and passed a measure allowing workers to pack heat in the workplace. Now, a state representative has introduced a bill to allow students–and presumably others–to come armed to campus.
There are sound reasons why IUPUI and other universities do not want guns on campus. We have our share of immature students, troubled students, and far more troubled visitors. (There used to be a self-described “evangelist” who “preached” loudly on the plaza next to my building, calling female students “whores of Babylon” and ranting about various sins he attributed to passersby. I don’t think arming him would have been a great idea.) I know that gun lovers really believe arming students would prevent tragedies like Virginia Tech; I don’t share their sunny suppositions–my guess is it would be equally likely to increase the bloodshed. But whether I am correct or they are is not the point.
The point is that government should not be able to decide who can come armed into my home, my place of business or my office on campus.
Gun rights activists who are constantly criticizing government over-reach, constantly talking about limited government, ought to take a good hard look in the mirror. Their hypocrisy is showing.
Well, written, Sheila.
The argument “if people had guns at Virginia Tech, things wouldn’t have been so bad” has always bothered me, especially considering the Fort Hood shooting–a place where, one would expect, there are plenty of people with quick access to weapons.
In our office, we’ve had a couple of people who have kept a handgun on the premises (they might work late, for example, and felt the need to carry, and in one case the person was a retired Marine colonel)–but WE decided it was OK. We’re a small enough company that we know each other pretty well. We would hope we could tell if someone was a potential mental health hazard. Today, if we wanted to keep a possibly unstable person from bringing a gun to work, our hands are tied.
The problem with the legislation is that there’s no balancing of interests at all. One would think being able to have a gun in one’s car was a decent compromise.
I think the reasoning usually advanced, when proponents bother explaining at all, is that the Second Amendment is the right upon which all the rest depend — sort of a revenge fantasy where the government is intent on taking away free speech rights, the right to trial by jury, and all the rest; but then a brave group of citizens throws off the yoke of tyranny with their trusty firearms.
But, given the seeming lack of interest in, say, defending the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures; I have a hard time seeing Second Amendment triumphalists rousing themselves to protect too many of the other rights.
For many, I think it’s an extension of the culture war mixed in with some gender issues. Guns (at least the right kinds of guns) are manlier, more rural, speak of a simpler time – they are John Wayne and NASCAR. (Not sure what Second Amendment enthusiasts have to say about gangsta rappers with their AKs.)
In any case, Amendments like the First, Fourth, and Sixth are dependent on words and lawyers and craftiness you know in your heart are wrong but can’t quite articulate why.
“They seem to believe that the Second Amendment trumps all the other provisions of the Bill of Rights.”
Didn’t you get a little carried away here? Can you identify the provision in the Bill of Rights that gives a State university the right to restrict other rights, or that of an employer to determine safety measures?
I’m not defending those obnoxious laws; I’m questioning whether other constitutional rights are being transgressed.
Doug said, “I think the reasoning usually advanced, when proponents bother explaining at all, is that the Second Amendment is the right upon which all the rest depend — sort of a revenge fantasy where the government is intent on taking away free speech rights, the right to trial by jury, and all the rest; but then a brave group of citizens throws off the yoke of tyranny with their trusty firearms.”
Wake up, Doug. The government has already authorized unlimited detention of American citizens without due process of law. The U.S. Senate gave its stamp of approval to this violation of the most fundamental of our constitutional rights by a 93-7 vote. It’s not fantasy; it’s reality.
GUN RIGHTS NEEDED TO SHOOT F-ING TEA PARTY/CONSERVATIVE NUT JOB LUNATIC REPUBLICANs, WHEN WE FINALLY GET FED UP ENOUGH OF THEM, BECAUSE NOTHING ELSE WILL WORK, BECAUSE THEY ARE TOO STUPID TO LIVE.!! GIGGLE!! if they have all the guns, were doomed..
this post is partially in jest, but I would rather have a gun, and not need it, than vice versa; and i would really rather have a kevlar flak vest to wear under my winter coat; etc.. wheres our rights to those? isnt kevlar a right to personal protection as well? tired of arguing with other liberals on why I , as a liberal support the constitutional right to guns. happy holidays to you and yours! and when in doubt- duck and cover and pray.
I agree with your point about guns in private workplaces. An argument can be made that since IU takes public money, then law-abiding citizens of the state who obtain a license to carry a handgun from the state should have the ability to do just that. If universities want total control over their buildings, their property, etc., then they should become 100% privately funded entities (or at least have a minimal amount of income from taxes. ie: Grants, etc.).
As far as the preacher types, some are looking for a quick buck. Their entire goal is to look and sound crazy and say things which are legal, but upset many people. Universities have been sued because the powers that be don’t agree with the message, and thus treat these people different. This can include moving them from high profile areas where just one week ago, some pro-abortion person was allowed to preach about how we should have abortion on-demand, no questions asked.
And while you point out the crazy preacher and troubled students, lets not forget that even employees of these institutions have also used firearms to kill fellow employees.
The underlying issue is that absent metal detectors and bag searches at every entry point, guns will always be on campus. There are always students with firearms discovered on various campuses. If a criminal wants to bring a gun on campus, they will, and the fact they are a criminal means they will do with that gun whatever they please. A silly administrative rule isn’t going to stop gun crime, ever. It will never stop a person from shooting others on campus. All it will do is prevent law-abiding citizens from being able to at least have a chance at survival.
I have to wonder with regards to IC 35-47-11.1 Local Regulation of Firearms, Ammunition, and Firearm Accessories. This chapter applies to a political subdivision (as defined in IC 3-5-2-38). Part of IC 3-5-2-38 includes “other type of local governmental corporate entity.” The three IC codes that discuss the formation of IU, Purdue, and Ball State all include use of the word “corporate” when describing these entities.
In response to Bill Wilson’s comment, military bases severely restrict access to firearms. They are kept in locked locations, unloaded, and are only accessed during training sessions. Sadly Fort Hood was full of disarmed people with no way to defend themselves during that attack.