Colorado’s New Gun Laws: A Conservative Perspective
Colorado’s New Gun Laws: A Conservative Perspective
In 2023, Colorado’s legislature enacted several new gun laws, sparking a significant debate. These laws, which include raising the gun buying age from 18 to 21, implementing a three-day mandatory waiting period, and expanding Colorado’s red flag law, were designed with public safety in mind. However, critics argue that these laws conflict with conservative values and violate the U.S. and Colorado constitutions.
Individual Freedom and Limited Government
Conservatism is rooted in the principles of individual freedom and limited government. It advocates for a government that serves its citizens, not controls them. However, Colorado’s new gun laws contradict this principle. By imposing age restrictions, waiting periods, and expanding red flag laws, these laws are a significant governmental overreach. They directly infringe upon our constitutional rights to bear arms and due process, rights that are not just legalities, but fundamental aspects of American tradition and law.
The Right to Bear Arms
The right to bear arms is protected by both the U.S. Constitution and Colorado State Constitution. The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution states, “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.
The Colorado Constitution affirms an individual’s right to possess and carry weapons for self-defense and in aid of civil power when legally summoned. Let’s look a little closer at the Colorado Constitution.
The Colorado Constitution
Let’s dissect the Colorado Constitution:
1. “The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property”: This part affirms an individual’s right to possess and carry weapons for self-defense. It does not specify any age restriction or waiting period.
2. “Or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned”: This part extends the right to bear arms to situations where an individual is legally summoned to assist civil authorities.
3. “Shall be called in question”: This phrase means that these rights should not be doubted or challenged.”
4. In case anyone missed it: The “right” to carry shall not be called into question. Very much like the US Constitution “shall not be infringed”
The newly enacted Colorado gun laws, specifically the age restriction and waiting period, infringe upon our state’s constitutional rights. While these laws aim to enhance public safety, they arguably restrict the ability of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and their property.
Politicians seem to be less interested in finding solutions. Instead, they appear to rely on a continuous cycle of victimhood and oppression to secure votes. This strategy oppresses the middle classes and victimizes the lower classes, leading to a classic case of class warfare under the guise of ‘Gun Violence’ gun laws.”
Rule of Law — The Right
A fundamental conservative principle is the rule of law, emphasizing limited government, individual freedom, and the preservation of traditional values. However, with the establishment of the Department of Education in 1979, traditional values have been overshadowed by progressive liberal philosophy, marking a significant expansion of government overreach. This shift has impacted every aspect of traditional American life.
While this may seem unrelated to Colorado’s gun laws, it reflects a broader trend of shifting societal norms. The teaching of liberal socialism in education has become increasingly prevalent, sidelining or even demeaning conservative principles. This societal shift can also be seen in the enactment of new gun laws in Democrat-controlled state legislatures, which some argue, sideline conservative values in favor of progressive ideals. As of December 5, 2023, Republicans controlled 54.75% of all state legislative seats nationally, while Democrats held 44.35%.
Rule of Law — The Left
The liberal perspective on the ‘Rule of Law’ generally advocates for a more significant role for the government in society. This ideology posits that all individuals are subject to the law, with exceptions made for those who have been oppressed. It suggests that individuals who align with a particular political ideology or party may be exempt from laws perceived as unjust or discriminatory based on factors such as discrimination, gender, race, skin color, or socioeconomic status.
This viewpoint can lead to a ‘Laws for Thee, But Not for Me’ mentality, which disproportionately impacts law-abiding citizens who do not belong to the ‘correct’ gender, race, or ethnic group, thereby promoting identity politics.
Criminals, who typically disregard laws, are often unaffected by these policies. They have become a significant voting demographic for the Democratic party and are frequently cited as a primary cause of crime surges in major cities.
When District Attorneys choose not to prosecute criminals, it is often attributed to the ideology mentioned above. However, it’s important to note that these are broad generalizations and may not represent the views of all liberals or the Democratic party as a whole.
Conclusion and Way forward
The recent introduction of new gun laws in Colorado and numerous other states governed by Democrats should be a cause of concern for all Americans. Many of these lawmakers seem intent on regulating the public, justifying their actions with statements like “We’re limiting your rights for your safety!” or “You can wait to acquire a gun” or “You’re too young to own a rifle, but old enough to serve in Iraq.” The underlying objective appears to be a gradual erosion of our rights. Ultimately, these laws are seen as infringing upon the Constitutions of both the United States and Colorado.
In Colorado, the Democratic majority has a track record of favoring legislation that leans towards involving a larger government role and significant authoritarian philosophy, as opposed to fostering personal responsibility and adherence to a Constitutional Republican form of governance. This approach, which often prioritizes the needs of the ‘many’ over the ‘few’, has led to questions about the fairness of these laws.
In this context, the viability of the American Dream comes into question. Is it still possible to carve out our path to success in a society where factors such as caste and gender, under the guise of diversity and fairness, seem to impede upward mobility? Life, by its very nature, is inherently unfair. Therefore, the reluctance to contribute to a community that appears to be plotting one’s downfall is understandable.
Comments
Post a Comment