Gun Vote Backlash: CO Senators Under Attack For Votes On Controversial Measure

The Colorado Independent:

WASHINGTON -- It's no D.C. secret that lawmakers voting against the the nation's powerful gun lobby will likely suffer the National Rifle Association's wrath come election time. But, as evidenced in Colorado today, there can also be political consequences of voting with the NRA.

Read the whole story: The Colorado Independent

Comments

[hansulrichrudel]

Perhaps politicians who refuse to support R.K.B.A. will soon have the opportunity to pursuing a different line of work!

[OdinsEye]

pissedmichael wrote:

"Steven Anderson @ 6:27pm 07/29/09. I'm sorry. I can see that this whole discussion is useless. "

No, it is not useless, so long as we conduct ourselves civilly.

Steve Anderson said he bought and sold "under the table". That does not necessarily mean illegal. In most states there is no requirement for private sales to be reported, recorded, or registered. If we were sitting down across the table having this discussion, in most states I could legally sell/give you any of my firearms on the spot, no paperwork what-so-ever.

[Beelzebufo]

The beauty of living in our country is that someone like pissedmichael has a right to have and voice his opinions regardless of how specious his reasoning may be. We have the right to ignore him. We can't change his mind, nor can he change ours, as he readily admits. So let's just nod our head and roll our eyes at him and his ilk. We've won the Constitutional battle, remember?

[1differentdrummer]

Dinos. Should either one win the next time they run? I know Bennet was appointed but he shows me zilch.

[synchronicity2]

These are my stupid senators and I can't say much for either one of them. Udall was a better congressman than he is a senator so unless he changes drastically I will be supporting someone else when his term if over. Bennet was appointed and I have nothing great to say about him either and feel likely that I will looking for someone else to fill his seat as well.

We finally have to democratic senators from CO but they both kind of suck!

[mikesw]

This was a dumb bill. It deserved to be voted down and those who stupidly voted for it --thinking to appease a small but noisy constituency-- deserve the consequences.

[Nicon]

Colorado has only recently changed to a blue state, and speaking as a resident, We still have a very long way to go. BUT the public is far ahead of these to. If they can't get in line with the rest of CO they can find another line of work.

[maddy48]

ala Steve, in whose interest - group, class,demographic-would this proposed legislation have benefited? what values or principles would this demonstrate or preserve? What sources of wisdom or understanding do you turn to so that you might take full responsiblity for unforeseen outcomes? Just askin, senators.

[OdinsEye]

"in whose interest - group, class,demographic-would this proposed legislation have benefited? "

People.

[Steven Anderson]

Over 30 years ago I had several guns, including a 357 magnum, all purhased under the table because I not only believe I have the right to own a gun but I also believe it is none of the governments business to know that I have it and I do not want it on some database somewhere. I knew I could get in trouble and kicked out of college but certain rights are worth dieing for...or at least a little incarceration to stand for your rights. Oh...and by the way, when I sold them I also did that under the table to the next several lucky gentlemen. No laws will ever totally stop injustice!

[MisterHands]

Thanks for enabling criminals, sporto.

[OdinsEye]

Got any proof?

[diggindirt]

I guess I'm a bit confused as to what you mean by "under the table". Are you a convicted felon? If not, you must not live in a free state.
Here in Colorado there is no law that prevents you from selling a firearm to a friend, neighbor, someone you just met etc. People buy and sell them all the time and it's perfectly legal. The only people that are required to do background checks are people selling at gun shows or licensed gun dealers. If I want to post a shotgun for sale online, then meet the person face to face to sell a firearm, that's perfectly acceptable. I've even bought and sold from cops.
However, don't try to ship one out of state without using a licensed dealer. As long you have no knowledge that the person you are selling to is ineligible to purchase a firearm, it's not an "under the table" transaction. If you are ineligible due to a past felony and you buy using this method, you are still in trouble. I make a bill of sale with a statement printed on it that says they are eligible to own firearms and that I am the legal owner and able to sell said firearm, we each keep a copy to cover our butt's in case someone is lying and the sale is complete.

[citizen of the universe]

Has the NRA gotten so powerful that States Rights won by 2 votes?

[djkrlsn]

Do not forget states have powers not rights and per Heller--the 2nd amendment protects an INDIVIDUAL RKBA, which would make the discretionary CCW of Cali of questionable constitutionality and Chicago's ban on both possession and carry flat out violations of the 2nd Amendment on the grounds that if it is unconstitutional for the feds to do something, it is equally wrong for a city or state government to do the same thing

[Glocksf21]

Its not a state right, it's a idividual right, right of the people shall not be infringed.

[MimiGardner]

The republicans have used guns as a wedge issue for years. It's not suprising they are now captive to the NRA.

[Chernynkaya]

OK, so we are entitled to own guns. How does one get from the right of gun ownership to the "right" to take that gun wherever one wants- to the beach, or a National Park or to school for crissake? Someone explain the justification for taking a loaded, lethal weapon anywhere they want. This county is either paranoid or homicidal.

[JNagarya]

By considering oneself more important than public safety. Which is to say, to consider oneself to be ABOVE the law.

[djkrlsn]

So far in every state that went to shall issue concealed carry of handguns, public safety improved because violent crime went DOWN --so it is the people that are blocking concealed carry by adults with clean records are the ones that don't give a crud about public safety

[djkrlsn]

While the question of "bearing arms" was not addressed in Heller because SCOTUS chose to examine the whether there was a right to own a gun--since SCOTUS held that the 2nd amendment protects an INDIVIDUAL right and the amendment clearly stated "the right of the people to keep and BEAR arms shall not be infringed"--and since self defense is lawful in every state (and since shall issue concealed carry has proven to reduce violent crime (or at worst vastly slow the increase of crime) the state has NO legitimate interest in preventing people with no criminal background from owning or carrying firearms-- and yes I do support the background check for purchase of firearms and a 2nd check for the carry permit (I even absolutely support training and testing along the lines of a drivers license--something that is designed to be passed by a klutz of average intelligence who has put in the study and practice time and with the testing directly aimed at demonstrating basic competence)

[legaleagle 45]

"While the question of "bearing arms" was not addressed in Heller"

Actually it was... and quite convincingly by Scalia see pages 16-18 of the opinion.

[Albertmum]

There was a full page ad in the Denver Post today regarding these two, a letter from Tom Mauser who's son was killed in the Columbine shootings. Something has to change. I won't be voting for these two either.

[pissedmichael]

Aside from trumpeting their 2nd Amendment rights, I have yet to hear anyone from the NRA or any other pro gun twit offer a reasonable explanation why they just have to have guns.
Guns are designed to kill. If you just have to have one, then it follows that you just have to kill.
Comforting.

[JNagarya]

Which rights DON'T EXIST -- see _Creating the Bill of Rights (Johns Hopkins, 1991), Veit, et al.

[legaleagle 45]

I have read all of the debates in the first congress concerning the 2nd Amend (at least all of the ones for which there is a record-- unfortunately the Senate did not keep records).

Guess what? The rights do exist!

[djkrlsn]

JNag--sorry after Heller--your claims that there is not an INDIVIDUAL RKBA carries no more weight than an abortion opponent's claim that Roe V Wade got it wrong would carry here on Huffpo

[OdinsEye]

"Guns are designed to kill. "

You have obviously never seen a Hammerli 160/162 or high end Anschutz firearm.

BTW, if you are correct, 99.999% of all firearms are being misused.

"If you just have to have one, then it follows that you just have to kill."

Non-sequitor.

[Eoin45]

In my mind, If you have to have one you're most likely more afraid than than the average person and therefore more likely to shoot at the slightest provocation. I'm a fairly recent arrival in Colorado and I used to think that cowboys etc. were brave, but judging from the way they cling to their guns here, I'd say they're really a bunch of fraidy cats. I don't know any liberals who feel the need to carry. Perhaps we're a lot braver than the gun toters.

[pissedmichael]

No point made. The point I'm making, if you're even interested, is that there is no legitimate reason to have a gun. If you feel the need to ridicule that opinion, have at it. Ridicule is just another weapon of those who cannot make a point. And yes, you are absolutely correct, more than 99.999% of all firearms are being misused.

[hallowellboy]

NRA pawns. They need to go.

[haiku man]

Uh... Harry Reid, the Dem num.b-nu.ts-in-chief voted for this bill too.

[djkrlsn]

Because Reid knows he will lose any chance of reelection if he opposed it