05/17/2002 Archived Entry: "Colorado US Senate"

Things just got quite a bit more exciting in the CO Senate race. Libertarian candidate yesterday was Stanley "convicted of the offense of unlawfully carrying a deadly weapon, and is free on bail until the court imposes a sentence on July 25th." Apparently, the Constitution has no force or effect in Denver, and it's been that way since 1906. The Libertarians hold their convention this weekend, Stanley is favored to win the nomination.

March 25, 2002
Garin-Hart-Yang Poll (Paid for by Strickland)
Allard (R) 43%
Strickland (D) 37%
Stanley (L) 4%

"As I understand it," stated Bryant, "Judge Patterson just said that because I live in Denver, the Bill of Rights, and the constitution of Colorado, Article II, do not protect any of my rights from the government of Denver. Is that your understanding, also?" Bryant asked. "Is the city government free to deny all the rights secured to me by the Constitution of the United States, and the constitution of Colorado, so long as they only do it here, in Denver?" Bryant questioned further. "Yes," said the city's attorney. "The Constitution has no force or effect in Denver, because this is a home rule city." Bryant then told him, politely, that that was an absolute abomination. He stated he pays taxes, to pay thousands of dollars each year so that this lawyer could protect his rights. "And there you are telling me I have no rights at all? I am outraged."
Bryant then stated to the attorney that he would do everything in his power to alert the citizens of Denver to this travesty and he would take this issue directly to the voters. The attorney replied that that's fine with him, but until the law is changed he will enforce it as written. He stated that as things stood right now, the Constitution has no force or effect in this city, and it's been that way since 1906.

The story was picked up today by the AP, The Rocky Mountain News, and The Denver Post. IIRC, Colorado has the ballot initiative process in place for the state. What an incredible initiative this would be, the Constitution put up to a vote!

I am unclear as to all the intricate legalities of this situation. It would seem that there is no way that they would be able and change this in the courts. That it could be placed on the ballot, and the home rule overturned via initiative and then popular approval, not legislative, is what seems to be implied.

Amendment II
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.

Libertarians have come to view their right to carry around guns as a principle they are unwilling to bend. Their argument, that the constitution gives them the right to bear arms, is seemingly true, but not entirely so. For instance, carrying a gun around might be protected by the constitution, but what kind of gun? If you are going to interpret the constitution as literal and strictly (not living and changing according to the time), then you can't then use progress and invention to endorse the carrying of guns not equal to what was then made law, which is what Libertarians attempt to do-- having it both ways. Otherwise, what's stopping the position from slipping and sliding sometime in the future into a borne arm that carries an atomic threat. Who draws the line on what "bear arms" constitutes? Strict constructionists of the Constitution use the words as written to mean what they say. To the founders, it obviously meant the guns that were around at the time, not the 48 -shot rapid-fire bazzoka aim, instead, more like muskets with slugs.

Like the Constitution party, who is seemingly focused entirely on making abortions illegal, becoming a one-issue party, which is what the gun issue is becoming for many Libertarians, is not beneficial for wider support.