Mark Udall Undercuts His Own Excuse for Voting Against Second Amendment

Mark Udall really doesn't seem terribly interested in getting rid of the U-turn Udall label. From the March 26 Denver Post:

When the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments last week about the Washington, D.C., ban on handgun ownership, U.S. Rep. Mark Udall of Colorado issued a news release saying he hoped the court would affirm the right of citizens to "keep and bear arms."

But on four occasions when Udall, a Democrat running for an open U.S. Senate seat, could have voted in Congress to repeal all or sections of the gun ban, he did not.

Udall campaign spokesman Taylor West said the congressman did not support the 32-year-old ban but also didn't think Congress was justified in overriding the district while the issue was before the courts.

"He believes in self-rule and the rights of local government," West said. "The people should be able to set their own laws."

Then we noted Mark Udall's excuse for voting against D.C. residents' Second Amendment rights: local government control. But yesterday Mark Udall undercut his own excuse. He voted not once but twice in Congress to interfere with home D.C. home rule on Second Amendment issues - supporting HR 6842, the National Capital Security and Safety Act.

Mark Udall, the model of election year inconsistency: It almost makes your head spin.

Bob Schaffer Wins Round 1 of YouTube Debate, Exposes Udall's Gun Rights Record

In the first Colorado U.S. Senate election to have a YouTube debate, the first question is on the 2nd Amendment. You can follow the link to view the candidate's answers.

In this race, only Bob Schaffer has consistently recognized an individual citizen's right to keep and bear arms. Mark Udall talks the talk, but has been on both sides of the issue.

Oh, and here is the documentation for Bob Schaffer's claims about Mark Udall's consistent F ratings from the National Rifle Association (though he did earn a D in 2006). In 2007 Mark Udall slipped back to receive an F-minus from Gun Owners of America. By contrast, Colorado Democrats Ken Salazar and John Salazar finished with a B and A-minus, respectively

Chalk up Question 1 to Bob Schaffer. Next question: higher education funding. In a very closely watched, neck-and-neck race, the YouTube debate could potentially have a significant impact.

2nd Amendment Decision Means Mark Udall Doesn't Have to Vote against Gun Control

Yesterday's absolutely momentous U.S. Supreme Court decision in favor of citizens' 2nd Amendment gun rights has a special resonance with this campaign.

Which side of the issue is Mark Udall on now? He refused to sign the brief signed by 300 other members of Congress that argued in favor of the 2nd Amendment right. He has used vague rhetoric to placate gun owners, but four times voted against bills that would have strengthened the rights of D.C. residents to defend themselves in their own homes. If Udall is happy about yesterday's Supreme Court decision, it's only because he hasn't had to go on the record in favor of D.C. residents' 2nd Amendment rights.

Few issues are so crystal clear as this one to show how Boulder liberal Mark Udall is out of step with most of Colorado. Udall ought to be judged not for his vague and insincere rhetoric, but for his record in support of gun control over self-defense.

Mark Udall Puts Big Labor Unfunded Mandate Ahead of Taxpayers, Local Control

This morning, a watcher astutely points to another glaring contradiction in the rhetoric of Boulder liberal Mark Udall.

In March, Mark Udall took sides in favor of the Washington D.C. gun ban on the principle of local government control.

Now, Mark Udall is the co-sponsor of the Public Safety Employee-Employer Cooperation Act, which "would make the top officials at local unions the exclusive bargaining agents for public safety officers in every town or city with more than 5,000 people." An unfunded mandate that would impose unionization on local governments and make local taxpayers bear the cost? As a watcher correctly notes: "It looks a lot like local control to us, NOT."

So, let's get this straight. For Mark Udall, local control trumps the Second Amendment, but the Big Labor agenda trumps both. Does anyone else think Udall has been in Washington, DC, so long that he has confused the importance of the Constitution with the agenda of special-interest lobbyists? It sure looks like a reasonable explanation for Udall's hypocrisy and duplicity.

He Was For It Before He Was Against It

Mark Udall must have been out playing golf when 300 plus members of Congress asked him to cosign the congressional amicus brief on the Second Amendment case that went to the Supreme Court. He couldn't decide whether to use a wood or a putter and in the end, he could only decide to pick up his ball and go home.

Read this statement from Mark Udall's official site. The reasoning sounds exactly like John Kerry's "I voted for the $87 Billion before I voted against it."

If the brief stopped there, I would support it without hesitation. However, it does not stop there. Page 30 of the amicus brief includes declarations that “the District’s handgun ban is unreasonable on its face” and further, that “The lower court’s categorical approach in holding a prohibition on handguns to be unconstitutional per se was correct.”

Clearly, Mark Udall thinks that it was reasonable for the District of Columbia to criminalize the possession of hand guns within its borders for everyone except retired policemen. His stated position is that we citizens have the right to have a weapon with which to protect ourselves except when we don't, and he would side with the Bill Ritter's and the John Morse's who are too quick to say that we don't ever have that right.

Justice Alito asked:

“How could the District code provision survive any standard of review when they totally ban the possession of the type of weapon that’s most commonly used for self-defense…?”

Most troubling is that, as a member of the Senate, Mark Udall would insist on confirming only clones of Breyer, Souter, Ginsberg, and Stephens who would, in the words of Justice Breyer, make the Second Amendment a dead letter. He would let those clones do his dirty work while he piously claimed to be "for gun rights before he was against them.

More on this later in the week.

Second Amendment Question for Mark Udall

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?

Just Wondering About Gun Rights

Today's Rocky Mountain News has an excellent editorial on gun rights. It should be excellent, as it was written by one of the attorneys involved in getting the issue before the US Supreme Court.

Traditionally, left wing politicians, and Mark Udall has been called that more than once by his allies in the press and the blogosphere, have been opposed to gun rights. Of late, the left has tried to finesse the issue by claiming to be in favor of "hunter's rights."

If nothing else, this Supreme Court case will force Mark Udall to clarify his position on gun rights. It remains to be seen if he will be telling his patrons and potential constituents that he would vote to confirm judges who would restrict gun rights, or if he actually favors allowing the public to protect itself by owning guns.

If You Believe the NRA...

...Mark Udall is indeed moving his record toward the center.

From 1999 through 2004, he consistently got an "F" from the NRA on his Congressional gun rights voting record.

In preparation for his 2008 Senate campaign, he moderated his views enough to earn a "D" from the NRA in 2006.

At that rate, he will fully support Second Amendment issues when he is 93. Can Colorado gun owners and hunters afford to wait that long?