“My rights do not end where your feelings begin.”
This is the statement seen in hundreds of different variations spread across the internet and real life. From social media posts and memes to bumper stickers and coffee cups, this statement is particularly common in rural areas such as ours.
It is being used as a reference for the idea that guns, while scary and dangerous to most people, are a right enshrined in the Second Amendment and therefore (the concept continues) this should supersede people’s fear of them.
This idea and its consequences are now on full display in Salida. Over the past couple of months, interactions between Salida Police, citizens, and a self-professed armed white supremacist have garnered different interpretations of the Constitution, the rule of law, and an individual’s right to feel safe.
The prevailing belief, through law enforcement’s statements and actions, is that the armed man is simply exercising his First and Second Amendment rights, and they are bound by the Constitution to protect those rights. Salida Police Chief Russ Johnson reinforced this prevailing interpretation in an August 30 interview with Ark Valley Voice.
The Department of Justice’s Legal Guide for Police: Constitutional Issues is a “Legal Guide for Police, [and] Law Enforcement agencies, specifically, officers, investigators, and administrators… must acquire a thorough knowledge of the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the courts.” The guide further warns law enforcement, “Failure to comply with constitutional mandates can, many times, lead to liability on the part of the police officer.”
As Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Charles Evans Hughes observed, “As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution. The Supreme Court is ‘distinctly American in concept and function’.
This is why most people working for state and local governments in an official capacity, especially law enforcement, swear an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States not its interpretation or just a portion of it.
Given the importance of the Constitution and the complex legal ramifications of its interpretation, this article will only analyze the words contained therein without interpretation. Narrow or selective interpretation by anyone, let alone law enforcement, is dangerous to democracy because it contradicts other equally important parts of the document such as separations of powers.
First, the Constitution is not the First and Second Amendments. Nor is it even the Bill of Rights. The Constitution is a comprehensive document describing not only people’s personal rights but the articles which lay out how a democratic government should function for the welfare and prosperity of all citizens. There are legal scholars and Constitutional lawyers, indeed a whole academic discipline, who devote their entire lives to understanding and interpreting this foundational document.
In general, however, the Constitution contains three main parts:
- The preamble describes its purpose;
- Seven articles enumerate the separation of powers between each branch of government along with details about how those branches operate;
- The Bill of Rights/Amendments describes specific individual rights.
Throughout the document and its articles, there are numerous references to a person’s right to feel safe. However, there is only one place that references a person’s right to own or carry a gun (the Second Amendment).
Probably the most important example is the preamble which states the purpose of the document in the first place.
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Additionally, the wording in at least five of the ten Amendments (I, III, IV, V, VI) in the Bill of Rights deals directly with protecting a person’s safety, security, and pursuit of happiness.
In fact, even the Second Amendment’s wording does not say any person can have any weapon; no interpretation is required.
Instead, it links the possession of guns as pertaining to “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.”
Misinterpretation of this amendment was the subject of a previous AVV article. In that article, we examined the common misinterpretation of the Second Amendment where people or groups use just one phrase, usually the last one, in order to support a political point of view.
It does not require a constitutional scholar to understand this amendment, as written, cannot retain the same meaning by selectively using one phrase. To that end, police and military personnel have constant and rigorous training standards for handling weapons which complies with the “Well Regulated” part. No one knows what kind of training and experience the man who regularly appears on F St. (identified as Danny Taylor) has had handling weapons.
Finally, every state as a condition of its membership in the Union has to uphold and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States first. This is known as the Supremacy Clause, which is contained in Article VI of the Constitution.
In other words, no state can pass any law that violates the U.S. Constitution. As a result, a state’s legislative process requires rigorous vetting where teams of legal professionals and scholars ensure any law passed does not violate the Constitution. Of course, a law may be challenged later in court and found to be unconstitutional. But it is not law enforcement’s purview to determine its constitutionality.
This is where separation of powers is vital and must be taken into account. Not only must states uphold people’s personal rights outlined in the U.S. Constitution, they must adopt similar governmental structures and operations prescribed by the Constitution, in order to maintain a healthy functioning democracy.
Therefore, when local law enforcement interprets parts of the Constitution, they overstep into areas specifically separated to minimize consolidation of power by any one branch of government. In the case of the armed man causing alarm among business owners and shoppers on F St., some might see gross overstepping of constitutional provisions by law enforcement. Given the oath of office sworn to by law enforcement, it could be argued that law enforcement may be in violation of their oath of office:
“I, [Officer’s Name] do swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of Colorado, and the laws of the State of Colorado, and will faithfully perform the duties of the office of [Police Officer] upon which I am about to enter to the best of my abilities.”
In the end, it remains to be seen, whether the City of Salida will honor its 2020-32 resolution and decree as a “hate-free” zone which is also displayed on its official City Administration web page.
That might flip the claim to recognize that “My feelings don’t end where your rights begin.”
The SCOTUS determined in the Heller Case June 2008 that the Militia reference in the 2nd amendment was a preamble, and the right to keep and bear arms is an Individual right and doesn’t require participation in a militia. Your presenting your article with the minority disent that lost.
District of Columbia v. Heller, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on June 26, 2008, held (5–4) that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess firearms independent of service in a state militia and to use firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, including self-defense within the home. It was the first Supreme Court case to explore the meaning of the Second Amendment since United States v. Miller (1939). (https://www.britannica.com/event/District-of-Columbia-v-Heller
Then in the Bruen case June 2022, SCOTUS confirmed that all gun control laws has to follow the text of the actual 2nd amendment invalidating many state and locally imposed laws.
Submitted: Tibor Lanczy Salida CO
Thank you for reading, Tibor. I am glad you brought this up because I did not have space or time to include in the article. More importantly, those cases, while dealing with gun possession, do not apply in the case. 2A groups and supporters love to jump to those two cases in order to muddy the water around gun issues that arise every day. But since you brought it up, let’s dive in.
Both Heller and The New York Rifle and Pistol Association cases deal with specific gun control legislation already on the books. What we are dealing with has nothing to do with gun control legislation. It deals with Crimes of Public Order. All states have them and many of those crimes deal with improper handling of firearms, not gun control, and for good reason. Specifically, the subparagraph quoted by Ms. Brown is contained within the larger statute; Disorderly Conduct, describes weapons handling and threats which line up very well with the actions of Mr. Taylor. Moreover, the part referencing guns is just a small section of a larger law outlining all kinds of disorderly conduct.
Why doesn’t someone get a lawyer and take the matter to court? If you believe the city of Salida is failing to fulfill its duty, then sue them and let a judge decide if you are correct. Or if you feel that the gentleman carrying the rifle has harmed you, then take him to civil court.
Like it or not, the local police and prosecutors are following the Constitution by allowing the individual protest such as Mr. Taylor’s. In other words; “His rights don’t end where local feelings begin”.
On June 26, 2008, the United States Supreme Court ruled in the case of DC v Heller that the Second Amendment was “an individual right” and that the “Militia Clause” was merely a preamble reason supporting the inclusion of the amendment within the Bill of Rights.
On June 23, 2022 the Supreme Court determined in the New York Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen case that gun control laws must be based on the historical plain text of the Second Amendment, and invalidated several state and locally imposed gun control laws in multiple states.
I appreciate your fervent strict construction or “originalist” interpretation of The Constitution, however, I find the common argument of “like it or not” to be particularly disingenuous. As a gun owner myself who spent the majority of my adult life “behind a gun”, I know firsthand the potential dangers of guns, especially assault rifles such as the AR15. For anyone to allow or support hate groups such as the groups Mr. Taylor espouses to be part of, to manipulate The Constitution for their own hateful and antidemocratic agenda particularly reprehensible. The Constitution is just as much my document as it yours or theirs. We can use it to fight against hate just as much as they can use it to bring about chaos and the end of Democracy. Every person we interviewed respected his right to freedom of speech and even his right to own or carry a gun. However, in the manner and circumstances it was presented pretty clearly violated a law.
Thank you Mr. Hall. I hope this helps put and end to the bullying by our police and the extremist they are supporting.
Thank you Stephen for this well-written article. Appreciate you and AVV!
This article is beautifully written. It is unfortunate that the Constitution is being held at gun point by a willful misreading of the Second Amendment.
The people that say “Your feelings end where my rights begin” sure do spend a lot of time crying about all of the lawful things in this country that hurt their feelings. Hypocrite much?
It is almost as funny as the police and pro-police rightwingers who wear Punisher gear, blissfully unaware that the Punisher views most cops as the bad guys, and would despise the thug rightwing types who sport the logo.
I agree wholeheartedly with Stephen Hall. Perfectly said. THANK YOU!
Salida, Colorado
I agree wholeheartedly with Stephen Hall. Perfectly said. THANK YOU!