In Order to Win Colorado Back, House Democrats Must be Removed From Power

The Denver Post is reporting on the committee votes in the Colorado House:

HB 1050: Repeals requirement that anyone besides a licensed gun dealer who transfers possession of a firearm must obtain a background check and repeals requirement that charges a fee for a check. Defeated 6-5.

HB 1127: Establishes immunity from certain civil actions for owners and operators of businesses open to the public who adopt a policy allowing persons to carry a concealed handgun on the premises. Defeated 6-5.

HB 1009: Repeals the ban on the possession of large-capacity ammunition magazines. Defeated 6-5.

HB 1049: Adds a place of business to the locations that may be defended with deadly physical force. Defeated 6-5. 

HB 1086: Requires the Colorado Bureau of Investigation to produce in a certain time frame certificates allowing for the transfers of machine guns, destructive devices or other firearms or explain why, in that time frame, it was denied. Defeated 7-4.

See the whole article to contrast what the GOP is doing in the Senate, which passed constitutional carry out of committee. I hate to raise the bar higher, because Colorado activists have already been carrying a lot of water for the movement, but if Colorado is to be snatched out of Bloomberg’s hands, the Democrats must lose control of the House as well.

These were 6-5 votes. It’s very close. But the next election could determine everything. Abandon false prophets like Dudley Brown, who has a socially conservative agenda that extends far beyond gun rights. The Colorado GOP has to get smart and embrace good candidates who can win in that state’s more socially liberal political climate.

14 Responses to “In Order to Win Colorado Back, House Democrats Must be Removed From Power”

  1. Shrimp says:

    Not that it would have mattered if had those made it out of committee, being that cHickenlooper stills resides in the governor’s mansion. I knew there was little to no chance of legislative relief this cycle as soon as I saw that he won re-election. The GOP has the advantage of clogging up the works this year, but they won’t be able to repeal anything until the next election cycle, at the earliest. And yes, they need to control the House as well.

  2. beatbox says:

    I must say I am a bit surprised. I thought the threat of recall would have made them smarter on this.

  3. Michael Bane says:

    I don’t mean to bitch, but mainstream Colorado Republicans need to accept the fact that business as usual, e.g. picking the candidate whose “turn” it is to run, is suicide. Hickenlooper was completely vulnerable, and the Republicans managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by running an old school snore nod pol against him. Secondly, what I didn’t see in this election cycle that I totally expected to see was the Republicans 100% on board the Second Amendment bus. Guns are THE issue in Colorado…some of the candidates used that to their advantage, but I’d say that most did not. Guns are the only issue that successful unites the social issue Republicans with the much-more-prevalent-in-Colorado libertarian (small “l,” please)/independent voters.

    Just my $00.02-worth!


    • Shrimp says:

      Yeah, Beauprez is as exciting a warm milk toddy, and cHickenlooper was absolutely vulnerable. But the governor, he’s crafty. He knows how to campaign, and how to get others to play his game. He completely and totally took charge of the election when he went ‘off script’ and approached Beauprez on stage and shook his hand and declared that he wasn’t going to run any negative ads–he was going to run a ‘clean campaign.’ And like a deer in the headlights, Beauprez went along. He was too stunned to do anything else.

      Beauprez should have countered with, “Of course you want me not to run any negative ads. There’s been nothing positive about your first (and hopefully only) term as governor. There’s only negatives to discuss, like, how you trampled your constituents’ gun rights …”

      I swear, the GOP should change their party symbol from an elephant to a sucker, or maybe just a tombstone, since they usually put forward guys that are halfway in the grave, politically speaking.

      The issue front and center should have been guns and crime (specifically relating to Nathan Dunlap and the cHickenlooper’s decision to ‘temporarily reprieve’ him instead on either granting him clemency outright or letting him die on schedule). Instead, we had a campaign focused on where we’re going and “Colorado values.” Or something. Heck, even if they’d made it about business and taxes, Beauprez could have yanked him around by the short hairs for chasing Magpul and its 80 million dollar business (and two hundred jobs) out of the state.

      I swear they’ll never learn.

  4. Joe_in_Pitt says:

    The CO GOP should be tapping into the state’s libertarian-leaning streak. That means running folks that can pre-preemptively pick up the civil rights causes of progressives which can deflect some of the attention away from a staunch pro-2A stance. That doesn’t mean running social conservatives who are trying to dictate the other half of your life decisions.

  5. RAH says:

    Beupre was a very good candidate. Hickenlooper just manage to pull it out Colorado Gop has to work with gun groups to get elected in the state elections. It can be done e ( see recall efforts) But those recall candidates lost in the general. Did gunowners support the GOP or the Democrats?

    Most GOP do lean libertarian so how about gunowners support the GOP also.

    • PeevedGuy says:

      As a CO resident and self-proclaimed Libertarian, the problem is that the CO GOP runs hard-line GOPers (and Beauprez is definitely a hard-liner). They lose actual Libertarians and centerists when it comes to other issues – abortion, environment (that’s a biggie in CO), same-sex marriage, MJ legalization, etc. So, while the folks like me, who think that gun rights are important, are single-issue voters and may vote for them, they lose a LOT of possible voters on their other issues.

  6. Publicola says:

    Le sigh. working on a post dealing with this. Maybe this week i’ll have it finished.

    Very short (by my standards) over-simplified version: RMGO is pro-gunowner. The Colorado State Shooting Association and NRA have been the main adversaries to pro-gunowner bills here since before I arrived. Bitch about Brown, by all means. Hate him for all I care. Don’t have him over for tea if you must. But before you drive folks away from the only pro-gunowner group in my state, the only ones that are at least trying to return more of my freedom, mind suggesting a viable alternative? The NRA & CSSA aren’t it.

    The Colorado GoP cares about maintaining power for the Colorado GoP’s old guard. That’s it. Appeal to moderates? Sebastian that’s how we got here. Hell, a moderate GoP governor got us ubc’s at gunshows, a more stringent “guilty until proven innocent” for otc background checks, and a ccw bill that had “shall issue” in the title that was pragmatically worse than the may issue bill it replaced, let alone the very liberalized ccw bill that the moderate repubs, NRA & CSSA had killed to get it.

    They don’t need to win the house. They could take colorado back now. Right. Damn. Now. They could shut down the legislature, even refuse to work on the budget, til the ubc & mag cap laws are repealed (quorum of 18 is needed in the senate & behold – they has 18). They could shut down the state gov that way (let the budget run out) if they had to. But don’t worry; they won’t. They lack the balls & vision.

    Most GoP’ers gave lip service to gunowners, and they’ll vote (mostly – see that 7-4 vote up there?) when they have to. But it was a campaign issue for most, not a main one. even now they’re schmoozing as they try to see what kind of deals they can hammer out across the aisles.

    No, the GoP’s problem isn’t that it isnb’t finding “winnable” candidates that appeal to independents, “liv’s” or whatever demographic you think is the key. They’re problem is they lack principles, thus have little respect, thus have only one chamber out of 3.

    Oh, that wasn’t a constitutional carry bill, that was a permitless carry bill. It specified handguns, and over 21, & subject to the same restrictions as a ccw. A constitutional carry bill would have said weapons, mentioned no age past that of majority (i.e. 17 or 18), and had no restrictions.

  7. jerry says:

    Feel some sympathy for Colorado gun owners(the ones that did not vote democrat) but in the end, this does not affect anyone but the people of Colorado. The majority of Colorado voters have made clear their priorities(marijuana)and apparently the 2A is not one of them. Only thing to do is suck it up or leave. Sorry to be blunt, but there it is.

  8. Publicola says:

    Well, I didn’t exactly complete that one post I was gonna write in reply to this one of yourn. Instead it turned into 3 separate posts (I really need to look up that word – what was it? terse?). If you’ll pardon the shameful, if actually relevant self-promotion, the first part is at the following link and it leads to the rest.

    Oh, the 2nd post would explain why this is all relevant to folks outside of Colorado. You’ll see when ya get to that part. :)

  9. jerry says:

    Yeah, whatever pal. Still not my problem. Don’t you have a fatty to smoke?

    • JC_VA says:

      It will be your problem once they set their sights on your state.

      • jerry says:

        In Tennessee? LOL, I will take my chances. You might want to worry about Virginia. Or are you one of the smart boys who voted for McAuliffe and Obama?


  1. SayUncle » Democrats and guns - […] They used to pay lip service to gun owners. But to free Colorado, the democrats must be voted out.…