Attorney General Phil Weiser: gun control enthusiast. Learn about your Federal Constitution. Big business as gun control.
Attorney General Phil Weiser: gun control enthusiast (and in good company in Colorado).
Our AG is a gun control enthusiast: it's never been more evident than in a talk he gave back in May (linked first below) to celebrate the 25th anniversary of Colorado Ceasefire, a gun control group. A light reading might make you apt to to think Mr. Weiser more of a centrist with regard to gun control. A closer reading and some outside context, however, shows this to not be the case.
There is a saying in Spanish. "Dime con quien andas y te dire quien eres" (missing the accent marks) which translates as "tell me who you run with and I'll tell you who you are".
The groups and people our AG runs with are illustrative. A quote from the end of his speech is illustrative.
"Before I close, I’d like to thank in particular Eileen McCarron, one of the co-founders of Colorado Ceasefire. Eileen is dedicated to the mission of Colorado Ceasefire, which is 'Because every Coloradan has the right to be safe where they work, live, learn and play,' and demonstrates what a difference citizens can make by getting engaged. As Eileen often says, 'We have a responsibility to our fellow travelers on this earth to use whatever resources we have—either God-given or gained by our efforts or struggles—to use them for the good of humankind.' Amen. Thank you all for using your time and talents to save lives. It matters. And I will continue to stand with you as you do so."
Let's pair that with something Ms. McCarron has said (taken from an earlier newsletter I wrote which I linked to second below):
"[Co-founder of Colorado Ceasefire Eileen] McCarron added that introducing more guns through programs like the FASTER Colorado training will further the 'normalization of guns' in the United States, which she advocates limiting access to."**
Despite singling out the more centrist comments Ms. McCarron has made--who could want people to be unsafe after all--I still can't help but wonder whether or not our AG, like the people he praises and associates with, finds guns to be somehow abnormal or "apart" like McCarron.
Notably missing (despite explicitly mentioning cases like Heller and Rahimi) from Weiser's remarks is any mention of one of the more recent and seminal decisions of the US Supreme Court, the Bruen decision.
I won't go into detail on the cases (Weiser mentions Heller and Rahimi, and if you want context on any of the decisions I mention simply Google the name), but all three are important in a discussion of gun rights because all 3 give us the state of current law on the topic.
Bruen is notable for its absence in Weiser's remarks because of the strict judicial standard it imposes on gun control efforts. Cherry-picking certain aspects of the other two decisions as Weiser does in his speech clearly point to a thought process that says the law around guns is only valid and only matters to the extent to which it can be used to limit gun ownership. This is in contrast to a more centrist view of the right which hold tighter to a natural, non-second-class right we all have which might have some notable exceptions. Where rules might have a focus on protecting safety AND a fundamental right, rather than prioritizing the former at the expense of the latter.
Gun ownership in this paradigm is something subject to tight governmental control and proscription, as opposed to Weiser's paradigm on, say, abortion where he sees no role for governmental involvement whatsoever.
There is also the following quote:
"As we consider how to continue to shape public opinion, I am a big believer in dialogue, and I’ve worked to advance dialogue on gun safety, too. During the debate over the red flag law, this commitment was tested—but I stuck to it. When I was asked at Colorado State University by a student why 'I hated the Second Amendment,' referring to my support for our red flag law, I responded by asking him a question: 'why are you more concerned by the prospect of removing a firearm from a responsible gun owner than leaving it in the hands of someone who would kill themselves this weekend?' His response was encouraging. He told me 'I need to think about that.' And he did."
Again, the impression here is one of dialog and openness, but (and we put aside Weiser's rhetorical skills in skirting the question posed) look in at what Weiser said: "why are you more concerned by the prospect of removing a firearm from a responsible gun owner than leaving it in the hands of someone who would kill themselves this weekend?"
In keeping with the Bruen part above, this suggests some questions re. Weiser's true position on gun ownership. Is the only solution to suicide to take guns from the law abiding and responsible gun owners out there? Does the fact that there are those who are irresponsible or who would cause harm to themselves enough to justify abridging a fundamental right?
One is tempted to ask Weiser if he feels this way about other rights. Would Weiser equate silencing someone's protected speech if it meant that someone else somewhere else might not commit suicide? Would he advocate taking away someone's rights to attend the church of their choice if it meant that someone else, somewhere else wouldn't commit suicide?
As we get closer to the gubernatorial election, I believe we can expect Phil Weiser to try and position himself closer and closer to the center on many issues. Gun control will be one of those issues.
Do not be swayed, however. Please keep in mind his past support for things like an assault weapons ban and his words here. He is truly an enthusiastic supporter of gun control, not of your rights under both the federal and state constitutions.
**See also the "Related" content attached to this post for more context on Weiser and McCarron's relationship.
https://coag.gov/blog-post/attorney-general-phil-weiser-colorado-ceasefire-25th-anniversary/#_ftn14
https://coloradoaccountabilityproject.substack.com/p/good-guys-with-guns-busting-the-gun?utm_source=publication-search
Related:
In addition to being a major Democrat donor, Eileen McCarron of Colorado Ceasefire fame is a big donor to AG Weiser's campaign.
See the first page of her TRACER contributions page attached as a picture. Small wonder, then, that Weiser made a special thank you in his Colorado Ceasefire anniversary speech.
I'd effusively thank someone that gave me $800 (at least) too.
And while we're on the topic of Constitutional rights ...
I recently listened to Justice Gorsuch's book "Overruled" (expect more posts in the near future on scattered topics from the book) and loved it.
Towards the end of the book, Justice Gorsuch recommended a few things for study and/or discussion about the Constitution. A couple such resources are linked below.
The first link is to the "Interactive Constitution", a product of the National Constitution Center. The site offers a clause by clause look at the US Constitution with commentary offered by scholars who have diverging viewpoints (as well as converging ones). I'll let them explain it for themselves. See screenshot 1 attached for their explanation of how the commentary is generated and broken down.
Since the previous post dealt with AG Weiser's love of gun control, I singled out the link for the Second Amendment and put it second below. As noted in the screenshot, you'll see a common interpretation and then where the two scholars diverge.
The third link below is to the National Constitution Center's podcast on the Constitution. As with the interactive material, the episodes are (I've not delved as deeply here so I will go with Gorsuch's characterization--if you find different please feel free to speak up in the comments) with scholars who have a variety of viewpoints and tackle a variety of questions/issues.
I'm going to start adding episodes in amid the audiobooks I normally listen to.
Take a few minutes to read up on one topic, think about it, talk about it with others. Then do some more. If you find something here that touches a nerve or sparks a thought, please speak up in the comments. If you feel especially moved and want to write about it, consider sending in a letter to the editor of your local paper using this site as a resource.
Sharing diverging views on the document that undergirds our government is a worthy way to open discussions with others, discussions which might lead to things you didn't anticipate.
https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/about-the-interactive-constitution
https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments/amendment-ii/interpretations/99
https://constitutioncenter.org/news-debate/podcasts
Big business as gun control
The Reason article linked below is a shortened summary of a longer piece by David Kopel (author of the summary), George Mocsary, and Bhav Ninder Singh which discusses how big business has effectively become an agent of gun control.
While not entirely untread ground, I thought it worth sharing because, even in the shortened form, it has some worthy points to remember. Whether or not you are concerned with gun rights, the idea that big business can be a witting or unwitting agent for limiting your Constitutional rights ought to be a concern. Yesterday (in the Biden administration) it was speech, today it's guns, tomorrow .... ?
I'll leave it to you to read the essay (and/or the longer piece which is linked within), but the quote below is too good to not excerpt and share.
"This Article describes the significant shift toward privatized gun control, in which government entities** and large corporations converge to limit access to banking, insurance, and information platforms. The outcome is a new type of regulatory regime that can subvert constitutional checks, undermine lawful enterprise, and chill lawful speech. Curbing abuses requires a combination of targeted legislation, judicial oversight, and self-restraint by private institutions to ensure that neither lawful commerce nor individual liberty are sacrificed to hidden agendas."
Reading this made me long for the days when business just stuck to its lane. Football was about sports, not societal values. Banks (within legal constraints) didn't inject values into their business. And you could buy an ice cream cone without being preached at about LGBTQ+ issues.
Remember those days? Maybe I'm just being nostalgic, and I admit that I was not as attuned to politics then as I am now, but I heartily agree with the need to, as Kopel et. al. put it, ensure that "lawful commerce nor individual liberty are sacrificed to hidden agendas" (guns as a case in point notwithstanding).
One thing you can do, right now, today, is to be careful in where you are spending and storing your money. Know the values of the companies you trade with and don't be shy about telling them when they've not met them (in addition to changing who you trade with).
**See for example how our state uses credit card companies to track gun and ammunition sales. The bill page is linked below the article.