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.

NRSC: Mark Udall On Gun Rights

Another Day, Another Mark Udall Lie (or two)

This is becoming tedious. There are actually two Mark Udall attempts to mislead the public today.

Mark Udall's campaign web site has the above graphic. It clearly claims that he has only raised $27,443 in grassroots contributions. If that were a graphic next to an appeal for $10, we might buy it as potentially truthful. It is next to an appeal for as much as $2,300. That makes it an attempt to deceive the public, a lie.

Of course, our favorite unofficial Mark Udall campaign spokesman opines that "a lie is a campaign tactic that someone else doesn't like" or something like that.

The second attempt to deceive the public came in the Denver Post today. It's author was our very favorite official Mark Udall spokesperson, Taylor West. We often refer to Taylor as God's gift to this blog because it is so easy to document the lies.

Today's Denver Post:

[ Mark ] 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.

And yet, Mark Udall's own congressional web site refuses to call the ban unreasonable. Indeed, when asked to sign on to a congressional amicus brief to the Supreme Court that advocated overturning the ban he now claims not to have supported, he said:

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”

The lie is quite obviously documentable when the two statements are compared.

Mark Udall Finds a New Reason for Being on Both Sides of Gun Issue

Last week my colleague pointed out how Boulder liberal Rep. Mark Udall has struggled to take sides on the Second Amendment issue:

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.

Of all places, the Denver Post today picked up on the theme:

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."

Mark Udall believes in the right to keep and bear arms except when he doesn't. But here is a new reason for Udall to be on both sides of the issue: local government control.

First of all, keep in mind this is from the mouth of Taylor West, who has shown a predilection for not telling the truth.

How honest then is the excuse West offered on behalf of her boss Mark Udall? I wonder if we searched through the Boulder Congressman's voting record, would we find a consistent dedication to the principles of "self-rule and the rights of local government"? Or, much more likely, is this just a convenient and disingenuous way for Udall to avoid publicly airing his support for gun control? To say something that won't estrange him from the Washington liberal club while trying to appear that he holds mainstream Colorado values?

Though Colorado has changed in its demographics, it still retains in many ways its traditional Western character. A lot of Coloradans care deeply about their Second Amendment rights, but they also appreciate public officials who are authentic and not phony. Mark Udall hasn't been too reassuring on either front.

Blogosphere Pushback

Yesterday, we reported Mark Udall's ill-advised decision to use Cara DeGette as its front person on any subject.

Today, we note that the blogosphere is beginning to comment on the eight year old document she published:

Best Destiny has a memo to Cara Degette - go back to logic class:

Your writing is without a point...

But, again, what's most laughable is the complete lack of an argument from [ Cara ] DeGette. Maybe it no longer matters in the Democratic world to actually articulate your points and defend them with reason--certainly, Barack Obama seems content not to actually make an argument about anything.

Best Destiny then proceeded to make arguments about several issues that DeGette could only mention as part of a reprinted list with no supporting argument.

Also today, The Colorado Index produced an essay observing that DeGette needs to check her dictionary before she tries to use words longer than four letters, having abused the use of the word "screed." She seems to understand four letter words and use them regularly without problem.

The real point of that essay was laid out in its title: Gun Rights - Still a Sharp Contrast Between the Parties.

One of the dirty little secrets of the 2006 campaign is that the Democrats bamboozled a number of Republican voters into voting for Bill Ritter because he claimed that he would build shooting ranges throughout the state and because he would protect "hunter's rights." So far, there doesn't seem to be money for shooting ranges and Bill Ritter's record on guns more closely matches his earlier gun control stance than any expansion of rights.

It is difficult to see what value Mark Udall's campaign got from 1) using Cara DeGette as its publicist and 2) digging up a document that will help Bob Schaffer far more than it will hurt him, if it hurts him at all.

Hunter's Rights

Mark Udall is promoting the use of hunters to cull the elk herd in Rocky Mountain National Park. He is also using the false argument that drilling on the Roan Plateau will interfere with hunting.

Bill Ritter's campaign also courted gun owners, in part by promising to build shooting ranges around the state. The promise was so successful that I have written elsewhere about registered Republicans sporting Ritter bumper stickers because they thought he would protect their gun rights better than Bob Beauprez. Events have proven them wrong, as anyone who studied Ritter's record could have predicted. Ritter signed at least two anti-gun bills and couldn't find room in his budget for the promised ranges.

It turns out that both men are using a cynical strategy to woo away hunters from the Republican party.

Note the heavy use of the word "progressive" in the SquareState essay. Progressives, especially eastern progressives, have a history of turning on gun owners with a vengeance. Party discipline would require a Senator Udall to support gun control. Today's question for Mark Udall and Bill Ritter is: What good are hunting rights, hunting access, and phantom shooting ranges if no one has the right to own a gun?