1st & 2nd Amendments

1st Amendment

We are entering into a dangerous era when we dismiss the 1st Amendment and justify the ban of free speech when it is offensive and there is no intent of physical harm. Some in politics will have you believe that hate speech and mal-, mis-, and disinformation should be banned or outlawed. This kind of agenda is in complete contradiction to the 1st Amendment.

Making laws that prevent offensive language will hamper debate and needed discourse. There should be no changing or altering the definition of the 1st Amendment just because someone is offended. The entire reason our founding fathers titled the 1st Amendment “Freedom of Speech” is because we have to be able to criticize each other to drive the right change in our society — without the freedom of speech, resistance from tyranny, oppression, or even routine changes to our government could never happen.

Some in politics will have you believe that by preventing hate speech or offensive opinions we are preserving democracy — that is categorically false. Whenever anyone says they want to preserve democracy by limiting your civil liberties, it is textbook government overreach and oppression. America was built on the 1st Amendment. It was because people had the ability to speak their minds without the fear of reprisal that allowed difficult discussions to be had. That is why political speech is supposed to be protected in the United States. The authors of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution understood the tendencies of tyrannical governments because they lived through it.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees several fundamental freedoms — religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from making laws that establish a religion, prohibit the free exercise of religion, abridge the freedom of speech, infringe upon the freedom of the press, or interfere with the right of the people to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances. While the First Amendment protects these rights, it’s important to note that protection of speech is not absolute. The Supreme Court has ruled that there are understood exceptions to the First Amendment — such as speech that presents a “clear and present danger,” or is defamatory, incites violence, or constitutes obscenity. The 1st Amendment also implicitly protects freedom of association, and the Supreme Court has ruled that the right to receive information and ideas is protected by the First Amendment.

One might consider that one person’s information is another person’s disinformation — who is to decide that, and on what timeframe? Disinformation in 2020 could be information in 2023; it is an example of what happens after research, more evidence is found, or confessions are made that contradict a previously perceived truth. The great nemesis to disinformation is trusted sources. When journalists turn into propagandists, we have lost journalism and our traditional media as a trusted source.

With the “Woke” movement we are forgetting the 1st Amendment’s fundamental protections afforded to all citizens. We are creating a foundation and a process that will systematically dismantle parts of the Constitution that are fundamental to a free society. The 1st Amendment is what cultivates and encourages people to speak their minds and share ideas. It allows bad ideas to be ignored and good ideas to percolate to the top. If nobody wants to speak due to fear of reprisal or criminal charges, we have lost the intent and benefit of our 1st Amendment.

As Utah’s Senator, I will defend this freedom passionately and help the other elected politicians understand we will never be relinquishing our 1st Amendment right to free speech.

2nd Amendment

Our 2nd Amendment is also a time-honored right for U.S. citizens. We value this right specifically because we value the safety of our family and loved ones. Those who attack the 2nd Amendment will tell you to call the police — that is not realistic when home intruders don’t wait for the police to arrive, and some of the most recent home-invasion crimes often involve the perpetrator having a firearm.

We have been devastated by school shootings. It breaks my heart knowing that children have to deal with such trauma. The solution, however, is not to take away our 2nd Amendment right. When I served in the military, I spent many hours studying and implementing ‘deterrent’ tools for secured buildings and unique operations for special forces. I have been trained by the DoD in physical security, weapon-system engineering, weapon testing, cyber warfare, and applying surveillance or reconnaissance technologies. I am a qualified expert with the M4 and have been exposed to many other technologies which have helped me understand the importance of operational risk, susceptibilities, vulnerabilities, deterrence, and protecting our most prized military human assets.

As Utah’s Senator, I will fight to implement similar DoD technologies to protect our children when they go to school. Computer-vision and AI technologies are a promising path that can help deter school shootings. If it is good enough for our military, it is good enough for our children.

I am currently only in favor of controls as they relate to background checks and to assess those who might have a history of mental illness or gun-related violent crimes. I would seek to limit pharmaceuticals that use drugs on children that cause suicidal tendencies or thoughts of harm. There are common-sense steps to take while preserving our 2nd Amendment. There should be no reason a person can’t wait an extra few days to run these checks before they obtain a firearm.