Gun rights advocates plan another Colorado recall

[GreenStormCloud]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/10/07/gun-rights-advocates-plan-another-colorado-recall/

Colorado gun rights advocates, coming off two successful efforts to recall Democratic state senators over votes to strengthen gun control laws, began collecting signatures in a third district over the weekend in hopes of booting another incumbent out of office.

And this time, the stakes are bigger than a single Senate seat: Control of the entire legislative chamber hangs in the balance.

Recall organizers won certification Friday from the Colorado Secretary of State’s office to begin collecting signatures in the effort to oust state Sen. Evie Hudak, a two-term Democrat from a district just north of Denver. The group must collect 18,900 valid signatures by Dec. 3 to force the recall question onto the ballot.

SNIP

But if recall organizers can collect enough signatures in Hudak’s district, they will have a strong chance of showing her the door. Despite outspending recall proponents by wide margins, and despite influxes of campaign cash from gun control advocates such as New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Morse and Giron both lost their bids to keep their seats.

And Hudak’s district is more conservative than either Morse’s or Giron’s. Hudak’s suburban Denver district gave President Obama 52 percent of the vote in 2012, according to a breakdown compiled by the liberal Daily Kos blog. Obama scored nearly 60 percent of the vote in the other two seats. Hudak won reelection over Republican Lang Sias by fewer than 600 votes of 80,000 cast in 2012, while a Libertarian Party candidate took more than 5,000 votes.

Gun control is becoming costly to Democrats. Time to drop it from the platform.

[hlthe2b]

1. "gun control is becoming costly to Democrats?" So, to hell with all those dead kids and innocents

that fall to the hands of our country's obsession with guns.

Yeah, that's the right priority. With that line of argument, perhaps we should support reinstitution of slavery--so that the Dems might recapture the "southern racist" vote?

[metalbot]

5. The issue is one of political capital and the results you get for spending that capital

The Democratic party spends an enormous amount of political capital on aspects of gun control that will have a very limited effect on gun crime. If we could eliminate every single large capacity magazine, we'd have almost no significant impact on gun violence in the US. The same applies largely to the introduction of mandatory background checks for private transfers.

The US clearly has a gun violence problem, but our fundamental gun violence problem is that of handgun violence. The only way you are going to have a significant effect on handgun violence through gun control legislation in the US is to ban them, and there is not even close to sufficient political support for that.

An alternative to gun control legislation is to focus on the societal reforms necessary in order to address some of the root causes of violence in the poorest segments of our society. That should be the core message of the Democratic party anyway, and would have a far greater effect on gun violence than any "common sense gun control" legislation.

There are other things we could do to potentially reduce violence that would require ZERO political capital. For example, we could have the DOJ start prosecuting people who lie on existing background checks. From the article linked below, there were 71,000 people who lied on NICS background checks in 2009. You'd think we might actually attempt to prosecute some of these people committing federal felonies, but instead the DOJ elected to prosecute only 77 of these cases.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/10/opinion/avlon-obama-gun-control/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

[GreenStormCloud]

6. +1 N/T

[krispos42]

28. Except the passed laws don't save lives

In the vast majority of shootings, ammunition capacity is not a factor. 98% of gun-related homicides are single or double victim, so it's not like a magazine restriction is an issue that will save lives.

Outlawing concealed-carry doesn't save lives; it doesn't stop criminals, who habitually carry concealed illegally, and it doesn't stop law-abiding people who decide to commit a specific crime with a gun and illegally carry concealed to the scene of that crime.

Only 400 or so people are murdered per year with rifles of all types; banning "assault weapons" (typically thought of as military-featured semiauto rifles, but legally also includes shotguns and handguns) will not stop sales of non-assault-weapon, self-defense rifles that are similarly featured and serve in the same role. And because so few are murdered with rifles annually (all rifles, not just military-featured semiauto ones), any reduction in murder this might achieve will be very statistically significant.

Nationwide universal background checks might work to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the unqualified, but there is a real distrust of national registration. Given the detailed abuses of the NSA (and remember, much is unknown), it's not as irrational as commonly portrayed.

No law passed or proposed will noticeably affect the number of guns per capita; I think we can agree on that. We're currently running at about 900 per 1,000 people.

No law passed or proposed will outlaw new handguns sales, or confiscate existing ones, so the most common weapon used for murder would be untouched.

Various "assault weapon" bans (remember, the definition is arbitrary) would change somewhat the hardware owned and sold new, but would not change the rate of gun ownership.

There is no public campaign proposed to discourage gun ownership, similar to an anti-smoking or anti-drunk-driving campaign.


So, we can see that gun ownership rates are not going to either rise or drop dramatically, either as a result of oppressive laws, or a swing in views about gun ownership.

We can also see that hardware restrictions only nibble around the edges of the issue.


So, is it worthwhile to have drastic, harmful changes to taxes, regulations, education, abortion rights, gay rights, land use, food stamps, college subsidies, and other issues in order strike an unnoticed blow on gun-ownership rates and some ineffective hardware changes?

[Eleanors38]

33. Well, that doesn't follow. This lesson has to be taught over & over, it seems:

If you want Democrats to win and establish an ON-GOING PRESENCE, drop the gun-ban stuff. The control/ban measures proposed time & again can't be linked to preventing mass shootings, and merely serves as a culture war red cape for those with the organization and will to up-root Democrats like a dead hackberry tree.

You are seeing this happen before your very eyes.

[rdharma]

2. Nick Adrasik approves of this OP

[TheCowsCameHome]

3. Well, that's the way it goes sometimes.

[Eleanors38]

34. What are you saying? The cost of doing bidness?

[TheCowsCameHome]

42. I suppose you could say that.

Some might call it sticking by your guns, in a sense.

[CTyankee]

7. By "gun rights advocates" you mean the NRA, right?

The article doesn't mention the NRA, but since it is the same tactic used against the former two CO congresspersons by the NRA, it likely IS the NRA.

And if that is true, then you are supporting an effort that is in essence capitulation of the Democrats to their sworn enemies.

[GreenStormCloud]

8. The Washington Post article didn't say.

The people collecting the signatures, as well as the names on the signatures, are all Colorado citizens. The NRA is NOT a branch of the Republican party. If a Democrat will support the RKBA, the NRA will support him. They have in the past.

They are a single issue organization, taking a stance only on the RKBA and not on any other issue.

[CTyankee]

9. So you support the NRA's effort in CO used against elected Dems?

Just want to be sure I've got you on the record on that.

And yes, I am perfectly aware that the "people" are collecting signatures and they are CO citizens. My point was it was formerly an NRA sponsored "effort" and there is no reason for me not to believe this is the same.

[Demo_Chris]

10. If their constituents support their position they have nothing to worry about...

And if they don't, why were they voting that way in the first place?

[CTyankee]

11. That wasn't what I was driving at.

The purpose of my post was to establish (or not if there is hard evidence) that this effort is NRA sponsored, just as the last one was. And to establish that, therefore, we have NRA supporters on DU.
Of course, they are free to support whoever they choose. What I don't like is the move to "erase" the NRA sponsorship and characterize it as merely a grassroots enterprise. Why not be upfront and honest about it?

[Demo_Chris]

12. Fair enough. There are obviously pro-gun rights posters here...

Saw a poll here a while back and the MAJORITY were pro-gun rights -- for whatever that's worth. In any case, someone who is pro-gun rights is not necessarily pro-NRA.

As for these recalls, whatever you or I might feel about gun control, these State Reps apparently did a piss poor job representing the will of the majority in their districts and they are paying the price for it. Hopefully the next time our party wins in that state the representatives will keep this in mind.

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. Actually they did

Last edited Wed Oct 9, 2013, 06:24 PM - Edit history (1)

the laws that were passed were passed with the support of great majorities of those districts.

Special elections, especially off year special elections, have the problem of having the most activated of the base show up. Look up the percentage of registered voters for both recalls.

This abuse of the recall process, starting with Gray Davis, is a way to obtain the electoral results that cannot be achieved during regular cycles. This is partly what is going on in San Diego as well.

And of course here is some data specific to Colorado.

Morse and Giron supported a strict gun law package that included universal background checks for all gun sales and transfers and a 15-round limit on ammunition magazines.

Morse received 49 percent of the vote in his district for the recall election, but only 20 percent of registered voters turned out, with no mail-in ballots and only four days of early voting. Morse lost his seat by only 343 votes.

"There was no revolution in Colorado Springs," The Colorado Independent's Mike Littwin wrote of the recall. "It was more of a temper tantrum."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/04/john-morse-recall_n_4046068.html

It is just amazing to me how many folks on this site do not know the most basic of aspects about special elections and how they tend NOT to have high turnout. This was the case here.

[pintobean]

20. Do you have anything to back that up?

the laws that were passed were passed with the support of great majorities of those districts

[pintobean]

21. Your edit still doesn't support your claim.

[Eleanors38]

36. On constituency "support:" Mile wide, inch deep.

This is what amazes me about what people on this site do not know. These recalls appear to be from the grass-roots, with the bigger players (NRA, et al) jumping in later, as they are wont to do. More importantly, the recalls show the highly competent, energized and precisely effective nature of the militant pro-2A forces, and the persistently out-of-touch character, when it comes to the "gun issue," of Democrats who want an established presence in CO and elsewhere.

Here in Austin, my Congressman, Lloyd Doggett, supports gun-control measures I don't, but despite the worst kind of gerrymandering the GOPers throw at him, he remains "safe," and I have supported his candidacies for various offices for more than 40 yrs.

And I have supported re-calls (along with other liberal activists) of turncoat city council members. Successful re-calls.

[Gormy Cuss]

13. If their constituents support the position because of a misleading campaign they have A LOT

to worry about. That's why it matters to understand whether the recall stems from true grassroots effort or from a special interest group.

CA recalled its governor in large part because of an effective campaign by anti-tax lunatics to point only to the governor as the reason for an ineffectual government.

Prop. 8 passed in CA specifically because of an effective campaign of disseminating misleading and flat out wrong information on what marriage equality would mean. It placed just enough doubt in a sufficient number of voters that we all were stuck with that turd.

[Demo_Chris]

14. Whoever it stems from, their constituents will be the ones casting the votes...

If they are recalled it means the people they represented are not happy with that representation.

[CTyankee]

15. Again, that is NOT the issue that drives my question. I want clarity from gun rights advocates.

We can at least ask honesty from those who are DUers. To support this effort is to support an organization who is using deceptive methods to disguise their sponsorship. Why not embrace the NRA for their tactics, then? Would there be some reason that you, as a DUer, would NOT embrace it out in the open?

[Demo_Chris]

16. Answer: I do not know who is behind the move. I would assume the NRA and the GOP

Obviously you care. I don't. I would prefer that this latest recall fail, but the people behind it have nothing to do with that position. If the recall succeeds it will be because the VOTERS wanted this latest rep out.

[CTyankee]

18. What you are saying is that the people of his district are somehow incapable of

making this grass roots effort themselves. Why would that be, if, in your opinion, the people would want in the first place?

[Demo_Chris]

27. I have no opinion about what the people in these districts want until they vote and inform me...

You seem hung up on the fact that outside agents might have provided the initial push, but for some unknown reason you seem reluctant to say why.

Just so we are clear, I have expressed no PERSONAL opinion on gun control at all -- not only in this thread, but on this forum. I haven't bothered, largely because I am far more interested in solvable problems like poverty and social justice than insolvable ones like criminal violence, but also because it's a non-starter. Politically it's the third rail, as these state representatives are finding out.

[CTyankee]

29. Actually, "outside agents" per se don't bother me, but in the CO incidents there are, shall we say,

distortions to the process favoring the NRA supporters side, e.g. in person voting where the voters are expecting the usual mail in ballots. Fine, your side figured out ways to "show" clear majorities (of a minority). So this goes in the playbook called "How to win when you are losing." But I get it. Anything to achieve your, and the NRA's, goal.

IT isn't against the law to side with the NRA on this issue. That is fine, go ahead, your right to do so. But, as you say, "just so we are clear," this is the NRA position. My problem is with "pro gun rights advocates" (to use your, and the misleading article's terminology) scurrying away from the NRA sponsorship and shifting the subject to poverty and social justice. "Look over here." Or simply to shrug and say, "the people have spoken" so the Dem Party better fall in line!

I understand from your journal that you have personal experience with the issue of poverty. Good luck to you, then. I only wish you the best in your struggle. I'm just calling for honesty, clarity and owing up to what you say you believe in.

[Gormy Cuss]

23. I hope they're happy with their own Schwarzeneggers. n/t

[Eleanors38]

37. IIRC, the recall forces were out-spent several times over.

[GreenStormCloud]

26. I stated my position very clearly.

Gun control is costing the Democratic Party seats. We need to drop it.

The title that I used was the exact same title as the article in the paper. The Washinton Post is not exactly a bastion of RW thought.

[NYC_SKP]

22. That's the title of the article. nt

[Blue_Tires]

17. "Gun control is becoming costly to Democrats?"

Way to miss the point...

[Recursion]

24. What in the laws that CO passed will reduce handgun violence?

If any solution you're coming up with doesn't address handgun violence, you're not even in the right ballpark. Magazine sizes, the angle of grips on rifles, etc. don't do anything, at all, about the 95% or so of gun deaths that from a single shot from a pistol.

It's possible that the background check measure will do some good -- AFAICT, both sides of the gun debate on DU are for it, and it seems to make sense. But we'll have to see whether or not it's actually enforceable in a realistic way. But the bill contained a lot more than that.

[Blue_Tires]

38. The point I'm trying to make is

believe it or not, what's going on in Colorado has little to do with the actual law...The GOP is just exploiting the issue to remove elected Dems from office...Naturally they're targeting the most vulnerable ones who require the least amount of signatures...

Personally, I'm surprised at how many DUers have been okay with this (or even worse, actually celebrating Dems losing their seats) because if the GOP gets away with this, next time they'll start recalling legislators over reproductive choice, GLBT rights, etc. etc...

Didn't the governor sign this into law? Why isn't anyone trying to recall him?

[Decaffeinated]

25. It's the point relative to this forum...

[Blue_Tires]

40. So why aren't any of the GOP's bullshit stances ever "costly" to them?

They seem to stay perpetually re-elected; no matter how high they turn up the 'crazy' knob

[Tommy_Carcetti]

30. Yes. Gun control is becoming costly to Democrats and it is time to drop the issue.

Just like in the 1950s and 60s, civil rights was becoming costly to the Democratic Party. Hell, you had Dixiecrats leaving the party and joining the Republicans. We should have dropped that costly issue like a hot potato to stop the hemorrhaging.

Backbone, shmackbone. It's all about expedience.

[CTyankee]

31. I don't think it is really "expedience" as much as it is trying to portray the NRA's position

as really the true one for the Democratic Party and therefore Dems here on DU should just "give up" on ANY gun control legislation. I just want them to be honest with us, and themselves.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

32. Good luck.

I don't know if we'll ever see that day.

[CTyankee]

35. I feel confident that we will someday.

for one thing, I think demographics are not moving in their direction. That will change things...

[joeybee12]

39. There are no gun rights, only gun privileges...the second amendment

has been bastardized by fetishist over the years to blur its true intent and purpose.

[GreenStormCloud]

41. That horse is thoroughly dead. You can quite beating it.

RKBA is an individual right and not connected with militia service, nor can you restrict it to 18th century technology.

[CTyankee]

43. For the time being. But as our country's demographics change, so will the political fortune of those

who rejoiced with the narrowly won Heller case. As we become browner and more urban we will see changes and this means changes on the Supreme Court due to voting patterns in presidential elections in the future. Your side's fortunes are tied with the losing side demographically. And while your side wins in gerrymandered congressional races, our side wins presidential elections. And presidents get to choose the make up of the SCOTUS, not members of the House (with only rare exception historically). This is why republicans are trying so desperately to suppress the vote in the states.

The way things are going at present gives me no cause to worry about our future political fortunes.

[TheCowsCameHome]

45. Probably shot by hunter that thought it was deer.

[hrmjustin]

44. We most certainly will not drop it from the platform.