My regular reader (Hi Jeff!) will recall I’ve often leapt atop my soapbox of idealism to offer my thoughts on gun control. And if there is one issue that shows James Madison might have been wrong – when he wrote The Federalist No. 10 back when Madison, Hamilton, Washington, and the other Federalists were trying to get all the states to ratify the new Constitution – it is gun control.

You may remember discussing Fed 10 in your civics classes or it may have slipped from your memory entirely, but that classic writing remains important today. Simply put, Madison argued our then-proposed constitutional system would best protect liberty in a society wherein there are many and varied factions (think modern special-interest groups) that all fought each other for power. Madison argued that we in the U.S. would end up with so many individual factions that they would all fight each other, and no minority group would be able to overcome the will of the majority. Pretty smart, right?

Enter the NRA…

Stay up to speed: Sign-up for daily opinion in your inbox Monday-Friday

Today, the National Rifle Association, with a membership of roughly 4.3 million continues to fully own and operate a sizable portion of the Republican Party, at least on the issue of guns. Oh, by the way, 4.3 million works out to about 1% of the U.S. population, so that’s a pretty effective group, I must say, especially when huge majorities of Americans disagree with the NRA on most issues.

The NRA’s view has always essentially been that any legislation that involves guns is somehow a direct violation of the Constitution’s Second Amendment. That’s nonsense, of course, as the Second Amendment states, very clearly, that a “well regulated militia” is necessary to the security of a free state. Note the use of the term “well regulated” which clearly means the ownership of weapons is to be controlled, albeit reasonably.

That, of course, is where the problems come, in that some folks think a bump stock that converts an AR-style assault rifle into effectively a machine gun is “reasonable.” Others, myself included, disagree. Recall, please, the mass murder in Las Vegas a while back, wherein the gunman (I won’t say the names of these types of people) used bump stocks on no less than 13 different rifles and he fired more than 1,000 rounds into the crowd attending a concert, killing 58 and wounding more than 800 others. But you like bump stocks? OK, I’ll use a different example: can we agree that gun shops shouldn’t sell, say, flame throwers? Grenade launchers? Tactical nukes? Ultimately, there is a line for everyone, though we differ on where that line should be drawn.

I bring all this up because of several important bills that were just signed into law by our terrific governor, Jared Polis. And not surprisingly, the sides lined up as expected, with the GOPers united in opposition to any of them, and the Dems (mostly) in favor.

As noted in a recent Colorado Politics story, these new laws include Senate Bill 168, which repeals an earlier state law that prevents victims of gun violence from suing firearms makers and dealers. I’ve never understood why those who make and sell guns should be exempt from legal action when their products are directly involved in crimes. You can sue a bar tender who sold too much booze to a drunk driver that killed a pedestrian, but you can’t sue a gun shop that sold, say, an AR-style assault rifle and 1,000 rounds to a high school kid? When you face legal responsibility, you are likely to behave more reasonably.

The next new law, Senate Bill 169, is the only one in the package that I might have voted against, had I been sitting in the state legislature. This new law raises the age to buy guns, with limited exceptions, from 18 to 21. I know, in my heart, that this law makes sense, in the same way raising the drinking age to 21 was a good idea. Teenagers simply are not fully developed intellectually, and lots and lots of bad choices are made by those under 21. That said, there is a part of my libertarian streak that notes 18-year-olds can join the military and fight for their country, but yet they can’t buy a drink or a gun? I admit, this one is a challenge for me, though I think I would have ultimately voted in favor of it, albeit with some misgivings.

Senate Bill 170 shows, at least to me, how deeply the NRA has conditioned the modern GOP to reject any bill that has the word “gun” in it, no matter how much common sense it makes. This new law expands the number of people who can file for “Red Flag” protective orders, wherein a person who is viewed at risk has his or her guns impounded for a while. Now, district attorneys, teachers, mental health and medical professionals are also able to file for such an order with a court. A judge still must rule on the protective order, but now more people in touch with those who might display symptoms of violent mental illness can make their voices heard. We can’t know how many lives this new law will save, but I’m betting the number is high. And yes, I am willing to allow for a mentally ill person’s Second Amendment rights to be briefly limited. The deaths of dozens or hundreds of Americans at the hands of a mentally ill individual with an AR is too high a price to pay.

Look, no rights guaranteed to Americans are absolute: you can’t sacrifice a baby as part of your “religious freedom,” you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater as part of your First Amendment rights, and you don’t get to have any gun you want under any circumstance.

Sorry, NRA.

The final new law worth looking at is House Bill 1219, which creates a three-day waiting period between buying a gun and being able to pick it up at the gun store. As I’ve mentioned before, I’m a multiple-gun owner. I remember when I bought my Glock, I had it in my hands roughly 45 minutes after I bought it, as the small background check that was being done took a bit longer than usual due to a computer glitch at the gun store. The clerk even apologized for making me wait.

Vitally, making people wait three days (or five, or two, there doesn’t appear to be a single “correct” length of time) can have a dramatic and important life saving impact, and I’m not talking about school shootings or other such violence. No, I’m talking about suicide.

According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, you know, baby doctors, death from firearms is the most lethal method of suicide, with roughly 90% of victims dying. And it is widely known that suicidal intent is often a brief  and transient extreme low – I’ve heard it called a permanent solution to a temporary problem. The AAP found states that had a waiting period had a 51% lower death from suicide rate than states without any waiting period. Surely that alone makes waiting a few days for a gun OK? Please? Having plumbed those depths of despair myself, largely due to my military-PTSD, I feel for those who feel utterly lost. I’m willing to wait 72 hours if that might help save a life or two.

Colorado, again, with strong and wise Democratic leadership, has taken important steps to safeguard our communities while protecting fundamental rights. If these new laws were the only work this session accomplished, I’d say good job. Happily, they are still plugging away at more and I look forward to seeing what they do next.

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.