Morse recall effort decidedly off target

Some gun-rights advocates were almost giddy with their announcement Monday they had gathered enough signatures to begin the recall process against Colorado Sen. President John Morse. They…




COMMENTS

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
Page 1 of 1


I am wondering whether telling the Democratic State Senate Caucus not to listen to their constituents; not to answer their e-mails; to cancel their town halls would rise to the definition of Malfeasance. One wonders if the blatant lies about the signature collectors put forth by Morse and his minions would rise to the level of slander?

It is popular to use the phrase elections have consequences, well votes have consequences as well, and Morse allowed the Colorado Senate, a voice for the Colorado people to be run by Bloomberg, Biden and Obama.

Kudos to the Daily Sentinel for its timely editorial criticizing the misguided partisan recall effort targeting Democratic Colorado Senate President John Morse (“Morse recall effort is decidedly off target”, June 5, 2013) for supporting Colorado’s reasonable and newly enacted “gun laws”.

While “[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”, our Supreme Court held in Heller that “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited” – i.e., can be “infringed” (e.g., by “prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual’ weapons”).

Ultimately, the constitutional issues implicated by Colorado’s modest new statutes will be resolved by the privately funded lawsuit challenging them – and in which the County Sheriffs’ are participating.

As the Sentinel aptly opined, because the County Sheriffs are law enforcement officers sworn to uphold our state and federal constitutions, they are entitled to an unambiguous determination of “what the law is”—and will be indisputably bound thereby.

However, as the Sentinel less aptly opined, the constitutionality of Colorado’s new “gun laws” is hardly “debatable”.  Because the Second Amendment is entirely silent as to the government’s authority to regulate the design, manufacture, and/or sale of “arms” in interstate commerce (nor limits its power to tax them under Article I, Section 8), merely   limiting the size of legal ammunition magazines poses no real constitutional question.

Likewise, while the Second Amendment guarantees (at least most) citizens the right to “keep and bear (at least some) arms” (at least for self-defense), nothing therein constrains governmental power to “regulate” how such “arms” are acquired.  Therefore, “universal” background checks for most gun sales (to prevent criminals, terrorists, and the demented from legally obtaining firearms) are also likely constitutional.

Meanwhile, hopefully, “the gunfight at the Colorado Corral” will occur only in our courts.

Page 1 of 1






Search More Jobs






THE DAILY SENTINEL
734 S. Seventh St.
Grand Junction, CO 81501
970-242-5050
Editions
Subscribe to print edition
E-edition
Advertisers
Sign in to your account
Information

© 2014 Grand Junction Media, Inc.
By using this site you agree to the Visitor Agreement and the Privacy Policy