Editorial: Rights The Right Way

Recently a number of sheriffs around the country, including Kimball County’s Harry Gillway, insisted they would refuse to enforce any decision they considered unconstitutional.

Specifically, these officers were referring to as yet unclear (and as yet theoretical) limitations on gun ownership.

Defense of the Constitution is an admirable thing. Those signatory to the initial document and the first ten amendments intended this nation’s founding paper to defend the rights of individuals within a government and define which decisions should rightly be left to state or federal authority.

With the adoption of the Constitution, the Founding Fathers established a strong central government, knowing such a thing was critical to the rule of law. They also—wisely—set up a system of “checks and balances.” Laws enacted by a state or even the U.S. congress can be subjected to court scrutiny.

Individuals concerned with the constitutionality of a law or decree may challenge the decision. The Supreme Court holds ultimate sway, determining whether a law stands or falls.

As yet, Congress has made no decision on limitations to firearms. Already, however, people have thrown down the gauntlet.

We approve of and applaud their zealous attention to perceived threats to our constitutional rights. We are, however, concerned over one aspect of the statements released by several sheriffs.

Only the Supreme Court can decide on constitutionality. Yet in their statements, these officers referred not to an intention to challenge any limits on American rights through the court, but to decisions they themselves consider unconstitutional.

During the original debates over the Constitution, delegates disagreed over many provisions. When the document came to a vote, Ben Franklin even admitted the parchment was not agreeable to all. It was, however, the best compromise a body could produce.

He asked the delegates to the Constitutional Convention to “doubt a little of their own infallibility” and approve of the document.

The second amendment in particular tests the interpretive skills of even the most accomplished legal scholars, with prefaced phrases such as “a well regulated militia.” Precedent allows for wise limitations to our constitutional rights--even curtailing freedom of speech in certain cases.

Should congress or the president place limits on ammunition or specific arms, we would expect these law enforcement officers to respect the nation’s founding document and bring their case to the court.

We know sheriff Gillway to be a good citizen and officer. We believe the others to be of the same quality. So we assume that in their zeal to defend against perceived limits, they simply rushed to respond and in the end will address the matter as our founders intended.