Since the Second Amendment is in the news, it seems fair to ask Mark Udall what his position might be on that issue.
A few factoids:
The District of Columbia sought to regulate the possession of hand guns to the point that only retired police officers might own them.
If the purpose of that law was to cut down on deaths, it was a law that didn't work. In the late 1980's the District of Columbia the law was 15 years old. At that time, D.C. was recognized as the Murder Capital of the US. Only the criminals had guns.
The Second Amendment was written at a time when the total strength of the United States Army hovered in the neighborhood of 600 to 1,000 men. The US was so weak that the British refused to honor the peace treaty requirements to abandon their forts south of the Great Lakes and were inciting Indian tribes to attack settlements.
The attorney representing the District of Columbia claimed that he took a trigger lock off a weapon in three seconds in daylight. Presumably he had the key in his hand. How far can a burglar move in three seconds in the middle of the night? If guns are to be for self protection, which the majority of the Court seemed to be arguing, are trigger locks reasonable?
The Liberals on the court clearly did not want to recognize the language of the Second Amendment as a right to have a tool with which to protect one's life and property.
Where does Mark Udall stand on the issue of Second Amendment Gun Rights? If his touchstone is Boulder as he once said, he is clearly a liberal. Is he in lock step with the liberals on the court?