A recent Colorado Politics story reminds me of one of the core concepts I used to teach American government students at the Air Force Academy: problems often come from rights in conflict. Recall from the brilliant Declaration of Independence there are both alienable and inalienable (apparently that word works with an “un” also, an odd quirk in our language, but I digress…). Alienable rights are those a government can lawfully and morally limit. And that is where lots of squabbles begin.

An example of an alienable right would be your “right” to drive your car as you wish. Though the government cannot unreasonably deny you a driver’s license, it can, in fact, require when you are driving you stop at stoplights. And as a former military cop who wrote hundreds of tickets, the government can regulate your speed on public roads, as well as other aspects of motor vehicle behavior.

The tricky part of the rights debate is when you try to decide which rights are ours as Americans and are, in fact, inalienable. And yet, after all that arguing, it turns out there are, in fact, no absolute rights. You might cite the right to religious freedom, and that is true as far as it goes. But if your particular sect decided, say, human sacrifice was a vital part of your religious expression, you would find the government shutting down that supposedly inalienable right.

When it comes to guns and the second amendment, it gets really messy, as noted in the story cited above. The Colorado legislature is considering HB23-1165, which gives individual counties the right to bar the discharging of weapons on private properties in certain circumstances. And please note that important point: the bill does not require counties to regulate firearms discharges, it only allows them to do so if they wish.

It’s hard to think of an issue that better illustrates the degree to which our lovely state is split by the Front Range, a more liberal area, with largely conservative but more sparsely populated regions on each side. And this bill illustrates the challenge of when seemingly fundamental rights are in conflict with other such rights.

For folks who have lived their lives in our rural regions, firing weapons on their own property has never even been an issue. You want to sight in your hunting rifle? Set up a target and fire away. Frankly, as long as your bullets don’t leave your own property, whose business is it other than your own? Heck, my own brother-in-law lives on several acres in rural El Paso County, and he shoots his guns there when he wants to. I have no problem with that.

The problem, of course, is in some locations the rural areas are becoming less rural. The proposed law would allow counties to regulate the discharge of guns when the “designated area” is more than 35 dwellings per square mile. As more and more folks move away from big cities to enjoy the agrarian advantages of rural living, there are more and more houses popping up where empty plains, forests, or other natural areas once stood.

As in so many things, especially when dealing with guns, it comes down to a matter of degrees. I’d hope not too many folks would support a person’s “right” to set up a firing range inside his or her own apartment. Clearly, being literally surrounded by other people is a very good reason not to fire off a gun. And conversely, if someone lives on their large ranch, with no neighbors for miles, they should be able to shoot as they wish (within reason, of course. Nobody gets to have, say, an anti-aircraft gun or an anthrax cannon).

And as should be the case, there is a rational middle ground where I hope things end up. The rules on who should be able to shoot guns should vary between Denver and Delta counties. The fact this law would not give the state more power, but would rather empower the counties, would seem to make this one a no-brainer for me. I’m guessing the good people on the board of county commissioners in, say, Kit Carson County will decline to create new regulations while the folks in Boulder County may well implement new rules.

This bill seems to fully recognize our state is different across the various regions of the Centennial State. Rather than insist on a “one size fits all” type of legislation, the authors of the bill clearly appreciate the variance in our state when it comes to guns.

As you read the story, you no doubt noted folks are automatically aligning themselves along the party lines that have long existed on gun issues. Not surprisingly, the bill appears to be moving forward with no bipartisan support. The Dems are voting for it while the GOPers are voting against it. That type of “all gun laws are bad” attitude frustrates me, because, as noted above, all reasonable people already accept some reasonable limits on what type of weapons people get to own. I don’t know of any gun ranges that let you bring a flame thrower or an anti-tank gun to shoot.

This bill would give counties the ability to figure out their own situations, and to act, or not to act, as they see best. Surely, we can meet in this reasonable middle? Sadly, on guns, I rather doubt it, but it will be interesting to follow this bill through the legislative process.

Stay tuned…

Hal Bidlack is a retired professor of political science and a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel who taught more than 17 years at the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs.