MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3201299777

The Right to Arms in Nineteenth Century Colorado

2018· article· en· W3201299777 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David B. Kopel

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Commons - DU (University of Denver) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstitutionGovernment (linguistics)LawPolitical scienceSpanish Civil WarConventionQuarter (Canadian coin)ImmigrationHistoryArchaeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This Article examines the Colorado right to keep and bear arms, in the nineteenth century. Part I describes one the arms of early Coloradans, including Indians, mountain men, and gold rush immigrants. Part I also covers the dramatic improvements in firearms technology that took place in the quarter-century before 1876. Part I then explains some of the conditions that made Colorado’s arms culture different from neighboring territories. Because settlers were remote from any functioning government, they initially had to make their own governments. They created a Colorado tradition of popular self-government that still thrives today. Collectively, the settlers used their arms to defend Colorado from Confederate aggression during the Civil War. Soon after, war with the Arapaho and Cheyenne tribes wiped out trade routes from the states, leaving Coloradans near starvation. The settlers survived because they had the arms to fight for survival. The pre-statehood period is one reason the 1876 Colorado Constitution affirms the importance of the individual right to arms for personal defense and for collective defense. Finally, Part I surveys some of the leading firearms businesses of early Colorado — businesses that helped make Denver the “emporium” of the Rocky Mountains. Part II examines the structure of the Colorado Constitution. It begins with the 1875-76 Colorado Convention. It then examines structure of the Colorado Constitution that relate to the right to arms, including the principles of government at the beginning of the Constitution: that inherent rights precede government; that the people have the right to alter the government; and that fundamental human rights, including self-defense, are inalienable. Part III analyzes the arms rights language chosen by the Convention and then adopted by the people. Each phrase in Colorado provision is examined, showing how Colorado sometimes followed or differed from other states. Coloradans chose the strongest language available to secure the right to arms. Immigrant-friendly, Colorado specified that the right belongs to every “person,” not solely to the “citizen.” Personal defense and collective defense were both of fundamental importance, and each was expressly included in the constitutional right. The most important means of collective self-defense are the state militia (article XVII) and the posse comitatus of able-bodied males, who may be summoned by elected County Sheriffs or other appropriate officials (article XIV). Notwithstanding the broad general language, Coloradans did favor one type of gun control — restricting the concealed carrying of arms. That was the only gun control expressly authorized by the constitutional text, which removed concealed carry from the right to bear arms. Part IV examines several interpretive issues. First, what types of arms are implicated by the text of the Colorado guarantee? Second, should this understanding by modified by an idea in the personal notes of Territorial Justice E.T. Wells, a distinguished Colorado Founder? Third, how did arms change in the years following the 1876 Colorado Constitution, and did the changes affect Coloradans’ views of what types of arms laws were permissible? Finally, what types of gun control laws were enacted in Colorado in the nineteenth century?

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.966
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.216 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigital Commons - DU (University of Denver)Same topicAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207