The Rocky Mountain News has a piece on Pete Coors' views concerning gun control. It was written by Gwen Florio.
"Both Pete Coors and Ken Salazar hold themselves up as defenders of the Second Amendment - the right to bear arms.
If Coors, a former National Rifle Association poster boy, had his way, a lot more people would be able to bear a lot more arms."
It's interesting to hear that Salazar is paying lip service at least to the Right to Arms. But then again it's hard to win an election in Colorado if you alienate gun owners completely. Denver & Boulder are different, but the rest of Colorado isn't a breeding ground for VPC recruits.
Here's Salazars' page on "other issues" which if you scroll down almost to the bottom you'll find the following:
"2nd Amendment – My philosophy and views regarding guns is based in large part on my upbringing, as well as on the law. I believe that the individual right to use firearms for protection, hunting, and recreation should be protected. I learned to use and respect firearms growing up on a ranch in the San Luis Valley, 5 miles from the nearest town, and often slept alone with a .22 rifle next to my bed for protection.
I believe we must have stronger enforcement of our existing gun laws, and I supported closing the gun show loophole. I support longstanding restriction on the possession of firearms by felons, instant background checks, a ban on specific automatic weapons and assault weapons to protect the health and safety of the public and importantly law enforcement officials."
Gun show loophole? He means private transactions that are deemed illegal in Colorado if conducted in any part at a gun show. He wants to take that piece of bullshit nationwide.
The felons in possession thing - a lot of people favor it. That is until you explain what offenses can get you disqualified, or that no time has to be served. If a person is convicted of any crime punishable by more than two years in prison (in some cases one) or for a domestic violence misdemeanor that person can no longer own firearms legally according to federal law. No time has to be served; a conviction with a 1 minute suspended sentence & no probation would be enough. After people let that sink in, then they usually recognize laws that could be broken but wouldn't be enough to merit a lifelong prohibition on a Right.
Instant background checks are nothing more than requiring governmental permission to exercise a Right. In principle it is wrong, as a matter of constitutional & common law it is wrong, & pragmatically it does not deter anyone but the people with no harmful intent. In other words it's useless except for chilling the Rights of people who intend no harm.
Now the last part I'll repeat for clarity:
"...a ban on specific automatic weapons and assault weapons to protect the health and safety of the public and importantly law enforcement officials."
Now this is an attorney. Not just an attorney but Colorado's current Attorney General. He believes there is a ban on automatic weapons & certain semi-automatic weapons. I see no such ban in the law. I see a ban on current manufacture of automatic weapons. That has been in place since 1986. I also see a ban on registering any automatic firearms that aren't already registered. That's been law since 1968. I see a ban on the new manufacture of semi-automatic rifles that have certain mainly cosmetic features. That has been the law since 1994. I see no ban on the current possession of either automatic firearms or semi-automatic firearms - only their manufacture.
If such a ban were to exist though, it would not protect the safety of anyone except government thugs & other criminals. Despite his waxing poetic about personal protection, recreational shooting (both of which semi-auto's & auto's are used) & hunting (where semi-auto's are used) the 2nd amendment's main purpose is to ensure that martial arms are in the hands of the people. I'll argue that hunting is a Right (despite Colorado & most states claiming it's a privilege) & I have no problems with personal self defense. But to omit the martial origin & purpose of the 2nd amendment is to simply not get it.
I'll also point out what seems to be a mistake: "...to protect the health and safety of the public and importantly law enforcement officials."
Now either "importantly" was added unintentionally, or the phrase was meant to be "more importantly" & "more" was accidentally omitted. If it was the former then it's nothing more than an embarrassing typo (of which I am all too familiar with). However if it is the latter then what we have is a public official who is stating that the safety of law enforcement officials is of greater importance than that of the public.
A 7th grader could run a successful campaign against a politician who made that statement (well, except in California or Massachusetts). The problems with it are obvious to all but the die hard collectivists.
In addition to the above, bear in mind that Salazar was the Attorney General when Rick Stanley was arrested & persecuted for carrying openly in Denver. Now surely if he respected the Right to Arms he would have denounced the idea of a man being arrested for possession of a firearm when he had no harmful intent & his only violation of law was of a Denver law which violated the state constitution as well as the federal.
So Salazar wants people to think he's pro-gun, but he's much closer to a Fuddite than an absolutist.
Getting back to the article, you'll note how Miss Florio wasted little time in calling Coors "...a former National Rifle Association poster boy...". It is entirely possible that Coors was a spokesmen for the NRA or that he posed for some NRA photos. The use of the phrase however seems to belie a negative view of Coors, as does the surrounding line: "If Coors...had his way, a lot more people would be able to bear a lot more arms."
"Queried at the Republican National Convention about his stance against continuing the federal assault weapons ban, Coors responded that in Colorado, 'we believe in the right to bear arms without restrictions."
If Coors really means that then there's a good chance I'll actually vote for a Republican this year. (Actually I'd have voted for a few Republicans, with Ron Paul being the chief one, but alas, he's not in my district.)
"Coors' spokeswoman, Cinamon Watson, said Wednesday that the Republican candidate for U.S. Senate 'is not an advocate for further gun laws. However, he does support strong enforcement of the gun laws on the books."
If that's true then I'll not be voting for a Republican this year.
"Earlier this year, though, Coors spoke at a Pikes Peak Firearms Coalition meeting in support of the repeal of several of those laws.
In response to a question from the group's Steve Gresh, Coors said that the Brady Bill, which requires background checks for gun buyers, should also be repealed, along with federal firearms laws from 1934 and 1968 that impose a host of controls." (of course the link was added - did you actually think the old media would be hip enough to include permalinks)
Jed over at FreedomSight was aware of the meeting at the time, & provided a link to a question asked of both candidates (at the time, that would have been Coors & Schaffer) & a link to the surveys that both candidates answered (again, Coors & Schaffer).
But let me just point out that any candidate who states that repealing the NFA of 34, the GCA of 68 & the Brady Law is a good thing is someone who'll have to work damn hard to lose my vote.
"Under those laws, people can't own machine guns or sawed-off shotguns, nor can people convicted of serious crimes, juveniles, aliens or people dishonorably discharged from the military own guns."
Here's an error of fact the reporter should have caught. The NFA of 34, the GCA of 68 & the FOPA of 86 all effect automatic weapons & short barreled weapons but they do not ban their possession. They require an unconstitutional tax to be paid on them along with registration after the government gives you permission to pay the tax. But people can in fact own machine guns & short barreled shotguns. Hell, a few months back a bunch of people who own those types of guns got together right here in Colorado. Miss Florio's statement is an example of sloppy fact checking. Or perhaps it’s an example of a complete lack of fact checking.
"In a questionnaire posted on the group's Web site, Coors also said he supported repealing the Lautenberg Amendment, which bars those convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors from owning guns; opposed any sort of firearms registration; and opposed limiting the number of guns a person can own."
Coors is sounding better all the time.
"Although the Pikes Peak Firearms Coalition can't formally endorse federal candidates, both Gresh, the group's secretary, and Harry Wellman, its treasurer, said Wednesday they personally support Coors."
Can't say as I blame them from what I've heard about Coors so far.
"Watson said Wednesday that 'Pete stands by his positions. He's not flip-flopping on any issues."
If only it were true...
"However, she said, 'in many cases, some of these laws that are 50 years old need to be retooled and reworked so they don't inhibit the rights of law-abiding citizens."
I liked it better when Coors seemed to stand for their repeal. But perhaps it's just a case of his campaign trying to distance Coors from being labeled a gun nut. But still, there's enough room in that statement to still support the repeal of the aforementioned gun laws.
"Colorado Attorney General Ken Salazar, Coors' Democratic opponent in the Senate race, said he finds Coors' position 'too extreme.'
'When you talk about repealing bans on machine guns and sawed-off shotguns, it's not where the people of Colorado are and not where the people of the country are,' he said."
I guess that Jed from FreedomSight & myself aren't included amongst "the people of Colorado".
Salazar finds the correct interpretation of the Right to Arms as embodied in the state & federal constitutions too extreme. Here are two extremist quotes for Salazar:
"Moderation in temper is always a virtue, but moderation in principle is always a vice." --Thomas Paine
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue." --Barry Goldwater
Nuff said? No, that's not enough said.
Salazar wants gun owners to trust him, yet he calls a position that respects the Right to Arms extreme. He backs various laws which will further restrict our Right to Arms & has done nothing to my knowledge to protect gun owners from immoral & unconstitutional laws. If that bastard thinks Coors is too extreme then let him start talking the "reasonable gun control" bullshit around me. In fact if any of you know Salazar feel free to tell him that I would love to sit down & have a nice long chat with him about what extreme really is: either on the phone, via e-mail, via instant messaging or in person. Hell, I'll even let him post here. If he's intellectually honest he'll have a change of heart. If not he'll think Coors is a reasonable chap compared to me.
Now keep in mind that I have spent a great deal of time researching the laws & philosophies surrounding the Right to Arms. I have strong opinions based upon what I have seen, heard, read & thought through. When I read this article it caused two thoughts initially: Coors sounds like he's on the right track, but Salazar sounds like he's derailed.
The Rocky Mountain News' readership isn't comprised of people like me though. They won't catch the error of fact the reporter made, nor will they understand the ins & outs of the firearms laws that Coors would repeal. & Miss Florio has no intention of getting them up to speed. So what the average Rocky reader will probably walk away with is what Miss Florio intended: the idea that Coors is a radical who would endanger us all by repealing perfectly good gun control laws.
It would be nice to have an article that presented the issue more in depth. In a paper I can understand why such an article would be abbreviated (though not as much as it is) but for the online article I see no excuse why a more detailed explanation could not be presented, or at least links to a more detailed explanation.
I will grant that Coors' spokeswoman was playing it very tight. I assume she didn't want to risk saying anything too controversial or that could be misquoted to provide ammo for Salazar. But a little research on the reporter’s part would have yielded many different sources (I among them) for arguments in support of Coors position.
From what I know of Coors he seems promising. I'll wait to see if he sticks to his position before I make a solid decision, but I will say he's a better choice than Salazar & probably a better choice than Schaffer.
Posted by Publicola at September 3, 2004 07:23 AM