CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
June 23, 2016 11:57 AM UTC
28 Comments
Wasn't Jared Polis there? Didn't the Orlando shooting move him? Sandy Hook? I cannot find any position he has taken on gun control, other than that he supports background checks. In one article, re: gun registrations, he said he was opposed to limits on the Second Amendment.
He has been a very disappointing Democrat, coming late to the game on fracking only when it impacted him. He supports education reform to enrich his Silicon Valley friends and he supports tax credits so rich investors of charter schools, like him, can shelter their money. He also was opposed to tax increases to the wealthy.
As Thomas Frank pointed out in Listen Liberal, the Democrats are more beholden to Wall Street then the majority of working class Americans. Democrats have lost their way.
I am curious how the due process of a citizen can be violated in an effort to stop terrorists from buying guns. I completely agree that terrorists should not be allowed to buy guns, however not sure how suspected terrorists lose constitutional rights prior to conviction, or how a suspected terrorist cannot be prosecuted in order to stop them from being legally able to buy guns.
Are we talking about deer rifles or assault weapons. The big issue of the moment is private ownership of military-style assault weapons, grenade launchers, tanks, bombs, etc.
These weapons should be prohibited outside of military and security uses.
With 30,000 gun deaths per year (20,000 of which are suicides), the issue goes far beyond assault weapons. Easy access to unsecured guns also needs to be regulated.
All guns (including deer rifles and hunting range hand guns) must have a child-proof lock engaged when not actually using them, and all guns must be stored separately from their ammunition in a locked, child-proof gun cabinet.
All guns must be carried in a locked container while being transported in a vehicle.
No guns may be carried on your person in a public area, in particular areas where people congregate, like suburbs, town centers, Universities, schools, shopping malls, courtrooms etc.
Automatic felony if a child finds your gun and shoots someone with it.
Obviously, there are police, military and security personnel who are authorized to carry guns, and have the training (hopefully) to use them.
You could make the same argument for the No Fly list period. I don't see the NRA or the GOP demanding an end to that list because of due process concerns. Which makes their opposition to people on that list losing the right to buy assault weapons without due process just an excuse and one that 90% don't buy.
Agreed BC however the Constitution does not protect the right to fly. You could make the same argument that if you are suspected of crime you are considered guilty until proven innocent. Its way past an "infringement" of the 2nd and I would think would not past constitutional muster. Is there any other law that can restrict your rights on suspicion? I don't know.
Again I say I am all for terrorists NOT allowed to buy guns. But if you are 1)not a U.S. citizen, 2)a convicted terrorist, or 3) a pending potential terrorist under indictment, you are already prohibited from buying a firearm.
That being said, can you site one instance of a person on the terror (or no fly) list that has committed an illegal act of gun violence?
The Pulse shooter was interviewed 3 times by the FBI. The FBI was contacted when he bought the gun. He was denied ammo from a (probably right wing) gun store. He posted on social media he was going to perform the horrible act. How many more red flags are needed to see that the government is not capable of protecting the U.S. citizenship from these attacks?
I don't see the "common sense" in this one. I really want to. Replace the terrorist list and gun rights with one you hold closer to your own ideals. Should a woman be denied her right to abortion because she is suspected of being promiscuous?
That analogy is wrong on so many levels. But I'm feeling the deja vu all over again, so you all enjoy yourselves.
You're conflating so many things in nonsensical ways, like mama, I hardly know where to start.
First the concept of innocent until proven guilty applies specifically to prosecution and trials. People can and do have access to means of being removed from a No Fly list. It's no more unconstitutional than a restraining order which likewise isn't a matter of trial or conviction or presumption of innocence and likewise can be viewed as limiting constitutionally guaranteed rights.
Oddly the second amendment is clearer than any other on the fact that it can indeed be subject to regulation. Of course all rights are but this one actually includes the words "well regulated" right there in black and white.
As far as your challenges on the good various laws would do in specific cases,we can't know what the effect of these laws gong forward would be in all cases but we do know that innocents dying as a result of loaded guns in peoples' homes outnumber by many magnitudes the number of people who have actually kept themselves or anyone else safe in their home with them and that the instances of people protecting themselves from terrorists or mass murderers with assault weapons is nonexistent.
Actually, the no fly list is more unconstitutional than a restraining order. Restraining orders have to go before a court before they're issued; they have to be served to the person in order to be effective, and then they can be challenged before a court immediately.
The no-fly list does not undergo court review. The affected person is not notified and doesn't find out until some punishment has been meted out – i.e. the denial of the ability to fly or the purchase of a gun. And the challenges are often complex and the path forward mined with "top-secret" information that the petitioner can't see.
The no-fly list and the broader terrorism watch list are much worse in so many ways than any enemies list drawn up by Nixon and Hoover, and yet we tolerate them because of "security".
At the very least, getting put on the no fly list or the terrorism watch list needs to go before a judge with an advocate (even if only a government advocate) for the person being put on the list present for the hearing. And the removal process must be made clear and simple as per any Constitutionally regulated trial.
An argument based on a restraining order being more or less constitutional than something else is flawed since restraining orders are not unconstitutional at all, have never been held to be unconstitutional. In our system something is either held to be allowed under our constitution or not. There is no such thing as relative constitutionality. There are only two choices. Something is either judged to be in conformance with the requirements of our constitution or it isn't. That judgement can change but not in degree. It's either OK or it's not.
So far the No Fly List has not been judged to be unconstitutional. Neither have restraining orders. Until one or the other is declared unconstitutional there is no difference in degree.
Neither has mass surveillance, or putting Sen. Ted Kennedy on the list, or National Security Letters and a prohibition about saying anything about those letters.
I prefer my country do the right thing, not the expedient thing, thanks.
Lots of pols found themselves on the list but got off.
I didn't make any arguments about expediency or even about the fairness of the list. I simply noted that it has not been declared unconstitutional and the concept of innocent until proven guilty has a very specific application. It's not a general rule that says no action, such as the issuing of restraining orders, may be taken without a trial resulting in a finding of guilt.
I can cite 49 people in Orlando who disagree with your definition of the "right thing" PR.
I'm sure that somewhere there's something between wrong in one way and horrifying in the other.
You can indeed block a suspected terrorist from having a gun. Due process means you allow the suspect a venue to get that right back. If you can only restrict their access after they have killed 50 people, there is little point.
I thought we believed in innocent until proven guilty, and that due process involved hearings in front of the legal system BEFORE depriving someone of life, liberty, or property – with liberty having exceptionally broad meaning.
As soon as you're blocked from boarding a plane, you're being deprived of a liberty. As soon as you're deprived of the ability to purchase a gun, you are being deprived of a Constitutional right. That you can challenge (through exceptionally twisty passages all different) your presence on the list after the fact is not sufficient to the text of the Constitution IMHO.
If the courts agree with your analysis than at some future date the No Fly List will be declared in violation the constitution. So far it hasn't been.
And my point about innocent until proven guilty stands. Yes there is a process involved with the issuing of restraining orders but there is no legal determination of guilt required so the concept of innocent until proven guilty is simply not relevant to the process. That hasn’t led to any court declaring such orders unconstitutional on those grounds.
Honestly, PR, the record is clear. The second amendment was proposed to ensure that states can maintain a " well regulated militia" in part to counterbalance the threat to liberty of a federal standing army. I happen to believe it also recognizes an individual right but at considerably lower scale. You have no right to buy a MA2 .50 machine gun unless you undergo a very restrictive federal licensing process. But the "ma deuce" is a mainstay of national guard units along with cluster bombs, tanks and jet fighter
It is also ridiculous to claim that the constitution has no "right to fly" as negev did. Absolutely false. The constitution guarantees freedom of movement for both goods and people between the states and that was one of the core reasons it was passed. In contrast, the second amendment is an afterthought. That is why it was an amendment.
I believe it was Holmes who noted that the Constitution is not a suicide pact. Follow your "innocent until proven guilty "" theory to the end and you can't hold Ted Bundy without bail. That, of course, is balderdash. And I can certainly place reasonable restrictions on the rights of individuals, as opposed to states, to buy firearms.
Actually, the Courts have indeed ruled that there is no "right to fly" – or to drive. Walking is AFAIK the only truly acknowledged "right of movement", and it's limited by property rights. IOW from the courts, so long as there's a method by which you can get from point A to point B that's in any way reasonable, your right to move freely about the country is maintained.
Believe it or not, I want to use the no fly list and the terrorist watch list during background checks. In fact, I think if it's merely a trigger for a deeper check, then it's okay right now. But if there's an absolute denial and it takes years to get off the list while waiting, then it's wrong.
Someone once said something about liberty and security. A group of people after 2001 thought it was horrifying that we were giving up one for the illusion of the other. It would be a shame it that same group of people now thought it was right because it more closely aligned with the cause of the day.
Look, we all know that the majority of gun owners buy guns for sport. The whole forming a militia to defend citizens against the government is so 1700s. The 2nd Amendment was never about hunting or target shooting,
I love tennis. I live and breath tennis, I would give up tennis to save lives. Why are gun owners so fricken selfish? They are horrible people.
You would give up TENNIS to save lives? That is a generous gesture.
You may want to consider surrendering free speech….
I would give up tennis to save lives, definitely. Of course, I suck at tennis. If by buying guns for sport you mean hunting, the majority probably don't do that. I have 20 guns, including a fine double barrel shotgun. I don't hunt with it, it's a relic from my grandfather to my dad to me. Pride of place goes to several classic military arms, including Springfield 03, M-1 carbine, M-1 Garand, Short Magazine Lee Enfield , Mauser and a civil war era Indian trading rifle. I have never fired any of those,
A gunny friend of mine once asked why I don't fire these classics. I replied "If I owned the Mona Lisa, I probably wouldn't fire it either.
My garand is just like the one my father in law carried as a combat engineer in Normandy.
This gun and the brave men who carried it stopped Hitler and it will always have pride of place in my collection. For actual shooting, I use a couple of .22s on my farm.
That's quite a classic collection. I am the proud owner of an '03 and Garand myself. Never fire them either for the same reason.
That said, are you comfortable in surrendering your right to own these weapons under the suspicion you may pose a threat to the U.S. government? Veterans are classified by homeland security to be potential terrorist threats;
But you are not alone:
Below is a list of 72 types of Americans that are considered to be “extremists” and “potential terrorists” in official U.S. government documents. To see the original source document for each point, just click on the link. As you can see, this list covers most of the country…
1. Those that talk about “individual liberties”
2. Those that advocate for states’ rights
3. Those that want “to make the world a better place”
4. “The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule”
5. Those that are interested in “defeating the Communists”
6. Those that believe “that the interests of one’s own nation are separate from the interests of other nations or the common interest of all nations”
7. Anyone that holds a “political ideology that considers the state to be unnecessary, harmful,or undesirable”
8. Anyone that possesses an “intolerance toward other religions”
9. Those that “take action to fight against the exploitation of the environment and/or animals”
10. “Anti-Gay”
11. “Anti-Immigrant”
12. “Anti-Muslim”
13. “The Patriot Movement”
14. “Opposition to equal rights for gays and lesbians”
15. Members of the Family Research Council
16. Members of the American Family Association
17. Those that believe that Mexico, Canada and the United States “are secretly planning to merge into a European Union-like entity that will be known as the ‘North American Union'”
18. Members of the American Border Patrol/American Patrol
19. Members of the Federation for American Immigration Reform
20. Members of the Tennessee Freedom Coalition
21. Members of the Christian Action Network
22. Anyone that is “opposed to the New World Order”
23. Anyone that is engaged in “conspiracy theorizing”
24. Anyone that is opposed to Agenda 21
25. Anyone that is concerned about FEMA camps
26. Anyone that “fears impending gun control or weapons confiscations”
27. The militia movement
28. The sovereign citizen movement
29. Those that “don’t think they should have to pay taxes”
30. Anyone that “complains about bias”
31. Anyone that “believes in government conspiracies to the point of paranoia”
32. Anyone that “is frustrated with mainstream ideologies”
33. Anyone that “visits extremist websites/blogs”
34. Anyone that “establishes website/blog to display extremist views”
35. Anyone that “attends rallies for extremist causes”
36. Anyone that “exhibits extreme religious intolerance”
37. Anyone that “is personally connected with a grievance”
38. Anyone that “suddenly acquires weapons”
39. Anyone that “organizes protests inspired by extremist ideology”
40. “Militia or unorganized militia”
41. “General right-wing extremist”
42. Citizens that have “bumper stickers” that are patriotic or anti-U.N.
43. Those that refer to an “Army of God”
44. Those that are “fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation)”
45. Those that are “anti-global”
46. Those that are “suspicious of centralized federal authority”
47. Those that are “reverent of individual liberty”
48. Those that “believe in conspiracy theories”
49. Those that have “a belief that one’s personal and/or national ‘way of life’ is under attack”
50. Those that possess “a belief in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism”
51. Those that would “impose strict religious tenets or laws on society (fundamentalists)”
52. Those that would “insert religion into the political sphere”
53. Anyone that would “seek to politicize religion”
54. Those that have “supported political movements for autonomy”
55. Anyone that is “anti-abortion”
56. Anyone that is “anti-Catholic”
57. Anyone that is “anti-nuclear”
58. “Rightwing extremists”
59. “Returning veterans”
60. Those concerned about “illegal immigration”
61. Those that “believe in the right to bear arms”
62. Anyone that is engaged in “ammunition stockpiling”
63. Anyone that exhibits “fear of Communist regimes”
64. “Anti-abortion activists”
65. Those that are against illegal immigration
66. Those that talk about “the New World Order” in a “derogatory” manner
67. Those that have a negative view of the United Nations
68. Those that are opposed “to the collection of federal income taxes”
69. Those that supported former presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr
70. Those that display the Gadsden Flag (“Don’t Tread On Me”)
71. Those that believe in “end times” prophecies
72. Evangelical Christians
I don't know where your list comes from but I'd have to put you under the conspiracy theoryblist, negev. Ib general, I don't trust anyone who thinks the U.S. Constitution consists of only one sentence.
Like all rights the right to frees speech is routinely limited. There is no such thing as an absolute right.
I call bullshit, Negev. The homeland security document you quoted lists several risk factors for being a violent right wing extremist, but it byno means has any such huge list, nor is simply being a veteran any cause for concern with DHS. I'm on my Android and put and about, so won't be posting any links nor engaging in protracted circular debates with you, but no. DHS is not targeting vets as suspicious people.
Here is a quick link for your review. You can search "Operation Vigilant Eagle" if you are unhappy with my source:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123992665198727459
CQ, mama. Far from viewing veterans with suspicion, DHS gives them preference in hiring. If we both applied for a job and had similar qualifications, I'd beat you out because of veteran's preference.
Neggev's list makes it clear veterans are NOT targeted as a group.. But if a veteran joins the Klan or a right wing Militia group, his or her veterans status doesn't make him immune from the law. This is as it should be. Benedict Arnold and Timothy McVeigh were both veterans. That doesn't mean they get a pass for treason. Ask Jonathan Pollard about that point. Or, for that matter, Jefferson Davis.