It’s 2014: Let The Gun Law Lies Begin!

Senate Minority Leader Bill Cadman.

Senate Minority Leader Bill Cadman.

As the Colorado Statesman's Peter Marcus reports, that didn't take long:

[Sen. Minority Leader Bill] Cadman supports his colleagues in a pushback against current gun control laws, pointing out that Colorado voters appear to be resistant. He said that even when it comes to background checks there is room for improvement, pointing to potential problems, such as not being able to transfer weapons within a family.

Coloradans support universal background checks by as much as 85 percent, according to polling. But Cadman said that support drops when Coloradans learn about all aspects of the law…

Meanwhile, voters may be asked to weigh in on a variety of gun control issues on both sides of the debate. One question may seek to repeal the magazine ban, while another proposal would ask voters to ban concealed weapons on college campuses.

“There are so many broken pieces along that that got deeper than, ‘We just want to stop guns from getting in the hands of criminals,’” explained Cadman. “Everybody does. We do too. But what they did was they stopped people who had a legitimate right and access to a weapon from getting to a weapon to defend themselves or defend their families. That’s the problem.”

Numerous polls have shown strong and enduring support for universal background checks on gun purchases. In Colorado, a Quinnipiac poll last November showed that fully 85% of Coloradans support the legislation, passed last year in this state as House Bill 1229. Cadman's claim that "support drops" for universal background checks with more details is based on polling done for the National Rifle Association and the National Shooting Sports Foundation that "more fully explain" the law. In truth, these dubious pro-gun polls are engineered to produce the results desired by the gun lobby, and can't be considered reliable compared to polls by reputable outfits that consistently show background checks for all gun purchases to be very popular.

Although we believe the question of public support for universal background checks is settled, we wouldn't call Cadman's assertion about differing poll results a "lie" in itself. Here's where Cadman lied:

"But what they did was they stopped people who had a legitimate right and access to a weapon from getting to a weapon to defend themselves or defend their families." [Pols emphasis]

Folks, can you show us a law passed in Colorado last year that stopped any person with a legitimate right to buy a gun from buying one? Don't bother, because you can't. Nothing passed last year in Colorado interferes with the right of any person legally permitted to buy a gun. Universal background checks have stopped criminals from buying guns in private sales, and there has always been an appeal process for background check denials if needed. Despite the absurd fearmongering (and horribly inaccurate news reporting) about the magazine limit bill, it doesn't stop anyone from buying a gun. Cadman's "skepticism" about Senate Bill 197, which requires persons with a domestic violence restraining order against them to surrender their guns, is well known–but that bill isn't really about buying guns, as persons with a restraining order covered by Senate Bill 197 are already prohibited from buying guns by federal law. Not to mention that standing up for domestic abusers could get really ugly for Republicans really quickly. We've never understood the GOP's vocal opposition to this particular bill.

Bottom line: you're going to see a lot of Sen. Bill Cadman this legislative session. Watch for him to argue a variation of this case against last year's gun safety bills as often as possible, as Republicans in the Colorado legislature pursue their agreed strategy of forcing Democrats to talk about (and vote on) gun issues every single day. As Senate Minority Leader, Cadman is going to be the tip of that proverbial spear.

As you can see above, he is also a liar. And that needs to be in these stories too.

50 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. ModeratusModeratus says:

    I opposed Senate Bill 197 just like Sen. Cadman, and I'm not afraid to say so. It's not fair to restrict a citizen's rights without a criminal conviction. Republicans tried to modify this bill to make it better but were refused by Democrats.

    It's not always so simple as Pols makes it sound. The devil is in the details, that's why polls that get into the details of UBC show a huge drop off. No one believes they should have to get a background check on their family members.

    • Diogenesdemar says:

      "No one believes . .  ."

      Call it [Smaldone] family values !!!

    • DavieDavie says:

      Good point, Mod. 

      'Tis better to let the wife-beatin' rapist with a restraining order *prove* he shouldn't be allowed a gun by actually committing murder, rather than subject him to the embarrassment of having his purchase denied in front of his buddies *and* deny the Gun industry their due profits on the off chance the victim was justifiably afraid for her life.


    • DaftPunkDaftPunk says:

      Not even Nancy Lanza!

    • BlueCatBlueCat says:

      It's still a lie that anything in the legislation prevents law abiding citizens from having and using guns to protect their families. That's not a question of simple or complicated. Those who have legitimate points to make shouldn't feel the need to lie. Why does everyone opposed to the recently passed gun safety legislation feel the need to throw in lies?

      As for "But Cadman said that support drops when Coloradans learn about all aspects of the law" we all know how things are "explained" in push polls looking for a particular result. If the lie about law abiding citizens being prevented from protecting their families is part of the "explanation" then the poll is a load of crap. Besides, there's room for a lot of slippage from an 84% that would still leave a solid majority in favor.  

      The Dems' job is to be just as strong in messaging the truth as the Rs are in messaging the lies. People need to be told that the reason they poll 84% in favor is because it's good legislation that has what they want in it and doesn't have what Rs claim is in it. No more, please don't think too much about this and think more about all the issues you do agree with me on apologetics.  

  2. DawnPatrol says:

    The truth, or anything even remotely resembling it, simply is not within these contemptible uber-extremist ghunfreeks.

    They are amoral, dishonorable, and shameless. There is no lie too despicable to fabricate and disseminate if it serves their narrow, selfish ends; no low-info/no-info voter they are unwilling to deceive, con, manipulate and mislead; no low too low for them to stoop in their quest for power and dominance.

    They are bald-faced, shamless, unrepentant LIARS, and will get away with their treachery and deceit as long as decent, honest, honorable Coloradans remain silent, and the vast majority of Colorado's political "journalists" remains  unquestioning water carriers for, and stenographers to, said liars.

  3. JBJK16 says:

    Why do  liberals hate the US Constitution?

    Show me the part of the 2nd Amendment that requires a background check, and I'll admit I'm wrong. 


    • Curmudgeon says:

      It's right next to the part that mentions "a well-regulated militia", you dunderhead.

      • JBJK16 says:


        I do not believe those words mean what you think they mean.

        oh we'll, to own his each.

        • BlueCatBlueCat says:

          Show me where it says the right to bear arms in the second amendment is the only right that can't be subject to any regulation or limits  All of the other rights guaranteed in the constitution are. Also, let me know when they start letting you board a plane armed with a shoulder mounted rocket launcher.

        • VanDammerVanDammer says:

          I do not believe you know how to think.  I only wish you'd keep it to yourself rather than publicly demonstrate your ignorance.  Betcha you're the type oiling up for some "2nd amendment remedies" if you don't get your way. 

    • DavieDavie says:

      Show me the part of the 2nd Amendment that says I can't have a personal nuke and I'll admit I'm wrong.

      • JBJK16 says:

        Yeah, that is a tough one. So it's not so much the keep and bear, it's the "arms" and the not being infringed.  I'll concede limitations on "arms" but we should agree about the keeping and bearing not being infringed. 

        • DavieDavie says:

          NUH UH — NO LIMITS!!!!!  

          Sed so yourself:

          It does not say "infringed in a big, significant way." Shall not be infringed – See more at:

        • BlueCatBlueCat says:

          You do realize that you're making no sense, LBJK16. Either the right to bear arms in the second amendment is an absolute right to bear any arms, including personal nukes, or it  isn't.  If you concede that it isn't then you must also concede that the argument is only about how far those limits should go, not about loving or hating the constitution, the flag, mom, apple pie, etc.

            • DavieDavie says:

              JBJK16 probably is new at the critical thinking required to play outside his usual echo chamber.  From his responses, I don't think he'd ever heard, much less considered, the simple arguments that refute his position.

              He's now off to repeat other fairy tale talking points.

              • Cogito says:

                There is also this:  The amendment refers to the right of "the people", not to all persons.  So long as the government does not limit storage and use of guns to government personnel, the amendment's purpose (whether it is allowing a militia or restricting the military advantage of the government) is met.  Regulations as to how civilians keep and bear arms does not violate the right of "the people" per se.

                • gaf says:

                  And the wording of the right of "the people" reinforces the point that this is about "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…" The militia as "the people" makes sense. The current SCOTUS's divining an individual right from this sentence does not–and it did not to any SCOTUS in the history of the country until about ten years ago.

    • ClubTwitty says:

      I'll go with the federal judiciary (see Article III, US Constitution) opinion that background checks are lawful rather than some random poster on a blog.  Just saying, you're wrong but whether you admit it or not matters not to me.  There are a lot of mis-informed, mistaken fools out there.  

      • JBJK16 says:

        Ok- so the Constitution requires application and even interpretation.I support background checks, but they are not mentioned in the 2nd Amendment.

        I support training requirements for those want a private carry permit.  Age limits. Weapon restrictions. Transfer regulations.

        But the weak, though popular argument seems to be guns are dangerous and bad, so we must  regulate and restrict them. It's an easy approach to run against, and more likely than not to lead to electoral difficulty, especially for those who cannot or will not successfully articulate a more careful and respectful message.

    • langelomisteriosolangelomisterioso says:

      Show us all the part that specifically prevents any background check.

    • For those new to actually reading and understanding the Constitution:

      The Constitution doesn't say a lot. In fact, it deliberately leaves out the details, in large part to ensure that it will survive generations of human advancement – and it has.

      The Constitution doesn't say anything about political parties, or primaries.
      The Constitution doesn't prohibit yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theater.
      The Constitution doesn't say anything about Miranda warnings.
      The Constitution doesn't require a photo ID to vote.
      The Constitution doesn't explicitly define all rights that a person might have.

      Interpreting the Constitution, from a legal (court) perspective, is all about balancing. Is the possibility that you injure someone by excuting your Constitutional rights with poor judgement sufficient to warrant protection of that person's life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness? Or might it infringe on another Constitutional right?

      Learn nuance.

  4. Diogenesdemar says:

    From Guns and Ammo, December 2013 — read it:

    Now, being the obvious constitutional scholar you seem to be, please show me the part of the constitution that precludes background checks (and other reasonable regulation)??

    • JBJK16 says:

      "…, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."


      It does not say "infringed in a big, significant way." Shall not be infringed.

      (The little dot at end is a period- the end of the sentence.)

      • DavieDavie says:

        Yee Haw!  That means the 1st Amendment allows me to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theatre.  Thanks JBJK16 — I mean Justice Thomas.  Glad a renowned constitutional expert has blessed this miserable blog with your presence!

        • JBJK16 says:

          Only if there is a fire.

          • BlueCatBlueCat says:

            Nope. You can't have it both ways. If the right to bear arms can't be infringed by any degree of regulation then the right to free speech can't be either. It might be helpful to accept that no right, or anything else for that matter, is absolute. Our right to free assembly doesn't include assembling on a runway at the airport. My right to freedom of speech doesn't include the right to yell fire in a crowded theater just for the fun of seeing what happens. It's silly to insist otherwise. 

            There is plenty of legal precedent for the recognition of certain limitations on the right to bear arms that has never been overturned by any Supreme Court decision. 


            You seem to think no personal nukes is a reasonable infringement. Others have different ideas about where to draw the line and that's all any intelligent discussion of the matter should be about. Getting hysterical about how people who don't agree with you on the details don't understand or hate the Constitution is simply childish.

            • JBJK16 says:


              yeah, that's me.

              • langelomisteriosolangelomisterioso says:

                Probably armed too and that's a bad combination.Hysterical and armed.

                • BlueCatBlueCat says:

                  Yet, I predict a great future in rightie politics for JB. Note how he ( I'm only guessing but juvenile male sounds about right) refuses to allow himself to be confused or distracted by either facts or logic.  So he passes the single most important litmus test for righties with political ambitions with flying colors.

                  All he needs to do is proclaim The Flintstones to be historically accurate, women to be in no position to make their own reproductive decisions, trickle down to be the key to economic growth and call for the undocumented to self deport and he could be another losing GOTP candidate for President some day.wink

              • BlueCatBlueCat says:

                You forgot childish. I suggest a nap.

      • ClubTwitty says:

        "I dunned looked it up in my dictinary and what hem judges and the United States federal judiciary says don't matter to me, I can read!"   

      • Ralphie says:

        It also says "well regulated."

        • For the sake of argument, assume that Heller is the law of the land (which it is). The "well-regulated militia" phrase is on the outs in the current Supreme Court – it's been legally separated in application from the rest of the 2nd Amendment.

          So for now, assume that the 2nd Amendment says "[blah blah blah…], the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

          Which of course means that anyone can brandish their gun in any way they want, because otherwise you hate the Constitution.

          • gaf says:

            Yes, it was so wise of our current court to point out that the first 13 words of the 2nd Amendment were just worthless, nonsense filler put in by the illiterate founders, and that those 13 words have no relevance to the main body of the Amendment, the last 14 words.

            • Ever seen a page of whereas sentences at the beginning of a bill? Completely meaningless for implementation…

              I happen to agree with the Supreme Court's ruling in Heller. Individuals were the possessors of guns at the time the Constitution was written. In fact, at one point this country required every qualified citizen to purchase and maintain a gun, that he might come to the defense of the country at a time of need. States wanted the provision in part to protect against the Federal government essentially disarming the various state militias. And while few states had provisions guaranteeing the rights of individuals to bear arms, at least two states did have such provisions at the time.

              Without an historical record of the discussion that led up to the final wording, we can only guess, but certainly some of the founders did want this as an individual right.

    • doremi says:

      That Guns and Ammo post by Mr. Metcalfe resulted in an outcry by the readers and threats by the gun industry to pull their ads.  Result.  Metcalfe, long-time writer for G&A was fired.  For the gun industry and the gun zealots, there is abslutely no compromise, ever.  They would sacrifice their believed (but not absolute) rights to all arms for the sake of 20 first-graders or their 6 teachers.

      Life, it is lovely, but a cheap thing compared to the thrills of owning these lethal pieces of metal.



  5. mamajama55mamajama55 says:

    Why  do these legislators not read the freaking legislation?

    Cadman has to know that HB13–1229 has NOTHING in it about requiring a background check when transferring a gun to an immediate family member. And an immediate family member is defined as:

    HOUSE BILL 13-1229





    Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Colorado:

    SECTION 1.

    In Colorado Revised Statutes, add 18-12-112 as follows:

    18-12-112. Private firearms transfers – b



    I think that about covers it, don't you? By the way, the specific family relationship language there was an amendment from Senator Giron, after she listened to her constituents about the "giving guns to family members" argument. Her constituents asked her to broaden the definition of "immediate family member", and she did.

    Senator Cadman has to know this language exists in the bill, so he's deliberately lying.  A sad commentary on our elected "leaders".


  6. doremi says:

    Thank you Mamajama55.  I just went to the bill to extract the same language, then found you had just posted it. 

    It is incredibly disingenuous of Sen. Cadman to try to pump up the gun zealots with false information…..and I agree.  He knows.  He was in the senate when this bill was debated ad infinitum and had to hear it over and over.


Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account

You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.