VIEWING GUN OWNERSHIP AS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT IS IMMUNE FROM REGULATIONS. PUBLISHED IN THE FARGO FORUM NEWSPAPER IN JUNE,
2022.
The Second Amendment protects a fundamental right, not unlike the freedom of expression that is protected in the First Amendment. Freedom of expression does not mean that anyone can say or do
whatever the hell they want, without any consequences. Why should the Second Amendment be immune to reasonable restrictions?
Expressive rights do not apply to libel, slander, fighting words, or obscenity. The right to free speech does not include a right to falsely shout, “FIRE!” in a crowded cinema and the right to
freedom of association does not include a right of an employer to engage in illegal discrimination.
Beyond limitations, certain expressive activities are subjected to certain, content-neutral time, manner and place restrictions.
The Libertarian Party has the right to march on the public streets, and nominate qualified candidates for elected office. However, the government has a legitimate interest in insisting that all
parades have permits and that all candidates have a modicum of support before they are listed on the secret ballot.
Yes, a particular regulation can be discriminatory -- be it racial or religious groups, or third-political parties, or those that choose to live the "gun ownership lifestyle."
Yes, a particular regulation can be more burdensome than is actually required to meet the legitimate government interest.
That is a legitimate debate to have and protecting civil liberties should – I would argue – be one of the main objectives of the federal Congress and courts.
Yet, that does not mean that we should not have any gun safety regulations at all. It does mean that the rules cannot be discriminatory or based on mere disapproval of gun owners or their
"culture," and that the regulations must be based on what is actually necessary to protect the equal rights of others, as well as something as serious as public safety.
NOT UP IN ARMS OVER GUNS, GAY MARRIAGE. PUBLISHED IN THE PERHAM FOCUS NEWSPAPER IN MAY, 2013.
OK, I am not the smartest person in the world, but, seriously, why should I freak out, run for the hills and get all up in arms about gun owners or gay marriage?
If a citizen wants to own a gun or many guns, that does not need to affect my life or my equal rights.
The only real question that we should be asking gun owners is whether or not they are responsible, law-abiding and relatively sane people. If they are, then what exactly is the big deal?
If a citizen wants to date or marry a lady or a dude, that does not need to affect my life or my equal rights. If they are responsible, law-abiding and relatively
sane, then I don’t see how two people’s gender, race, color, creed, class, politics or physical handicap has much to do with secular marriage.
Why are people gay? Why are people gun owners? If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around,
does it make a noise? No doubt these are all good questions to ask, but I am not some professor, politician or lobbyist who can make a living off these sorts of loaded
questions.
Peddling hatred and intolerance against people that do not look, think, pray, vote or live like me may be a great career move for some people, but not me. I have to live, for the
most part, in the real world, where there are only so many hours in the day and lots of work and family-related stuff to get done.
So, if you want me to freak out about something that is probably not going to affect me in a bad way or violate my rights, then I need a bit more than a B-movie inspired serial
about how someone should be given more attention, money and power so that they can stop the big, bad ‘redneck gun lunatics’ or the ‘militant homosexuals.’
