Category Archives: Colorado House

Checking in on Key 2014 Legislative Races

1
  by: Colorado Pols Fri April 19, 2013 at 12:19 PM MDT

With the legislature still in session (and candidates limited in the amount of money they can raise in the meantime), the Q1 reports for State House and Senate races are pretty sparse. But there are still a few interesting races that are worth watching at this point, including primary contests for the right to succeed House Speaker Mark Ferrandino and Senate President John Morse, both of whom are term-limited in 2014.

You'll recognize a couple of familiar names on this list, such as former State Rep. Mike Merrifield and former State Sen. Tim Neville. Merrifield was a high-profile member of the House who was term-limited in 2010. Neville was a sitting Senator in SD-22 in 2011 and 2012, but his district was re-drawn in reapportionment, forcing him to wait for 2014 to run in the re-drawn SD-16 (currently held by Sen. Jeanne Nicholson). Alec Garnett is the current Executive Director of the Colorado Democratic Party (until July) and the son of Boulder County District Attorney Stan Garnett.

Fundraising numbers after the jump…

(more…)


Full story: Checking in on Key 2014 Legislative Races

Discrimination? “I Choose To Work Where I Want To Work”

12
  by: Colorado Pols Fri April 19, 2013 at 11:05 AM MDT

We wrote yesterday about the debate over House Bill 1136, which extends the same protections against discrimination to employees of small businesses as presently exists for all other businesses with 15 or more employees under federal civil rights law. The Job Protection and Civil Rights Enforcement Act has drawn fierce opposition from Republicans, who have denounced the bill as "employment for trial lawyers" and an "attack on small business." As we noted yesterday, it has even been implied by Republican legislators in this debate that all such discrimination lawsuits are "frivolous," which would be a considerably more radical and distasteful position than most mainstream Colorado residents would agree with.

Here's video of a brief exchange between Democratic Rep. Lois Court and GOP Rep. Perry Buck, each relating experiences with harassment in their own lives. And how they dealt with it:

COURT: If this bill had been in place when I was a young woman, I would have sued the everloving out of some people in small business, and they would have deserved it. So I just want you to know that this is not about 'killing jobs,' this is about protecting people who deserve our protection. Please vote yes.

BUCK: Interesting, Representative Court, I was in the same position. And you know I looked at myself and, I, you know, I choose to work where I want to work. [Pols emphasis] That's our choice. But there was another female that actually recorded the conversation of the harassment. And she won a million dollar lawsuit! And I left the company because I wasn't going to work for a boss that was going to harass me. But that's your choice…

Got that, victims of discrimination? Sure you could sue, like some "other female" than Republican Rep. Perry Buck did, or you can do…the honorable thing or something. Which is, um, you know, to not sue. Rep. Buck ends her remarks (after this clip ends) by saying that the "choice" should be with people to sue or not, but that this bill to give employees of small business the same rights as other businesses is "unfair." She doesn't explain why, and her whole point just kind of collapses. But it's clear she's most of all proud to have not sued. For the rambling end of Rep. Perry's remarks, click here and navigate to 177:08. It's really not a pretty picture.

When we said yesterday it seems Republicans think all claims of discrimination are "frivolous," we realize that some of you thought we were perhaps exaggerating their position. That's a pretty radical position, after all.

Doesn't look like it, folks.


Full story: Discrimination? “I Choose To Work Where I Want To Work”

GOP’s Ugly Side Shows in Job Discrimination Debate

8
  by: Colorado Pols Thu April 18, 2013 at 8:47 AM MDT

The Grand Junction Sentinel's Charles Ashby reports, another great story outside the paywall:

Small businesses, just like larger ones, could face employment discrimination lawsuits under a bill that won preliminary approval in the Colorado House on Wednesday.

The measure, HB1136, extends to employees who work in business with 14 or fewer workers the same right to file anti-discrimination lawsuits against their employers that workers in larger companies can do in federal court.

The bill also extends to all employees regardless of the size of the business they work for the ability to file such lawsuits in state court.

Republicans mounted an hours-long unsuccessful opposition effort to this bill yesterday, with some 20 amendments of (to put it charitably) wildly varying seriousness, and a full-on ragefest about this bill as an "attack on small business" and "job creation for trial lawyers." FOX 31's Eli Stokols covered the scene:

Republicans brought more than a dozen amendments, including one to rename House Bill 1136 the “Trial Lawyers Employment Act”, simply to make political points and drive their Democratic colleagues nuts.

They accomplished that goal before the bill’s passage on a second reading voice vote, which was never in doubt.

“As former minority whip, I certainly appreciate the minority’s right to vigorously debate and stand up for one’s ideals. But there is a difference between having a thorough debate than purposely filibustering and obstructing the work of the House,” said Majority Leader Dickey Lee Hullinghorst, D-Boulder.

This isn't the first time we've been struck by the choices by legislative Republicans on where to make their ideological grandstands. Obviously, a minority is going to use the legislative process to lodge their objections to bills they cannot stop as memorably as possible. As contentious as this legislative session has been, hours-long bombastic debates would seem to be the norm.

But as the Sentinel's Ashby continues…why this bill?

“This is a complete outrage to small businesses,” said Rep. Jared Wright, R-Fruita. “We’re punishing economic growth in the state. We’re allowing frivolous lawsuits by employees to punish these small business. Do you think that’s going to help economic growth?”

Wright, who employed a trial lawyer for his own employment case against the city of Fruita after he resigned as a police officer there, [Pols emphasis] said the bill would only lead to jobs for lawyers.

There's a really big problem with this argument. This bill simply gives employees at small businesses the same relief from proven discrimination that businesses with more than 15 employees already have under federal law. Nobody's "allowing frivolous lawsuits." The lawsuit must still prevail in a court of law. The only way Rep. Jared Wright's argument makes sense, in fact, is if you believe that all such discrimination lawsuits are "frivolous."

Folks, if that's what they really believe, we think it should be broadly publicized.


Full story: GOP’s Ugly Side Shows in Job Discrimination Debate

When The Sheriff Is The Fringe

10
  by: Colorado Pols Wed April 17, 2013 at 9:36 AM MDT

We were recently forwarded copies of the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners candidate questionnaire for 2010 candidates for county sheriffs, with some responses from now-incumbent sheriffs. As you are probably aware, an ad hoc coalition of county sheriffs is threatening to sue, along with the right-wing Independence Institute, to block the two principal gun safety bills passed in Colorado this year.

County sheriffs, appearing on television and at hearings in uniform, have formed a major front in the Republican attack on these bills. Insofar as these are sworn law enforcement officers, they are automatically, and rightly, given a degree of credibility.

Based on the RMGO questionnaires we're looking at, some of these sheriffs, including some of the most prominent in the gun safety battle, do not deserve that credibility.

rmgocooke1

Weld County Sheriff John Cooke, the husband of the Independence Institute's Amy Oliver Cooke, has emerged as one of the most vocal opponents of House Bill 1229, requiring background checks on most transfers of guns.

cookeloophole

As you can see in his 2010 RMGO questionnaire, Cooke also supports the repeal of Amendment 22, the law passed in the aftermath of the mass shooting at Columbine High School in 1999, closing the so-called "gun show loophole" and requiring checks for gun show sales. Amendment 22 passed in 2000 with fully 70% of Colorado voters in favor. Today, even the NRA's president says this was "reasonable," although they opposed it at the time.

Folks, understand what this means. Sheriff Cooke is distantly out on the fringe of the gun policy debate, far more than the news coverage of his opposition to these bills suggests. This man wants to repeal settled and uncontroversial law for the overwhelming majority of Coloradans, passed in response to one of the state's most horrific tragedies. If viewers knew that about Sheriff Cooke, they might honestly wonder why he has that badge.

Check out the rest of Cooke's RMGO questionnaire here. And stay tuned, because we have more on the way. In the case of many of these elected county sheriffs, what we have are politicians first, and lawmen second. In some cases, lurking behind that badge are some highly irresponsible politicians.


Full story: When The Sheriff Is The Fringe

Mental Health Reforms “Studified”

4
  by: Colorado Pols Wed April 17, 2013 at 8:49 AM MDT

As the Durango Herald's Joe Hanel reports:

Legislators at last began moving on the final piece of their gun-violence agenda Tuesday with the first of two bills addressing people with dangerous mental problems.

Sponsors have scaled back their original plan to allow mental-health professionals to flag possibly dangerous patients and keep them from buying guns, as well as make it easier to hold a person against their will for mental-health treatment.

Both topics proved too controversial for mental-health experts to find consensus before the end of the legislative session May 8. Now, the bills call for a pair of task forces to start meeting this summer to recommend legislation for 2014.

In the aftermath of mass shooting incident in 2012 in Aurora, given weight after another in Connecticut last December, one of the highest priorities expressed by both parties was to reform the delivery of mental health services, making them easier to obtain in the crisis situations where they are needed most. The other component of this is the issue of persons who need to be involuntary committed, or yes, denied access to firearms due to the risk their condition poses to the general public. Nobody expected this to be an easy debate, and the underlying issues of public safety versus civil liberties call to our minds entirely valid arguments on both sides. But it seemed like there was support for trying. 

(more…)


Full story: Mental Health Reforms “Studified”

Don Coram Lies (Dog Bites Man)

0
  by: IndyNinja Tue April 16, 2013 at 1:23 AM MDT

As someone who is concerned with the practices of the oil and gas industry, I was excited when HB 1269 was proposed, and very disappointed when it was watered down during debate.

The original bill would have prohibited employees of the oil and gas industry from being appointed to the board that regulates said industry, but the final version of the bill allows for industry employees to be appointed to the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission and continue, as foxes, to guard the henhouse.

But it seems that Morrison Rep. Don Coram wasn’t paying attention during that debate, despite how important he says it is. Either that or he is purposely lying about it in his recent email to his subscribers:

“HB13-1269- Another bill debated on the floor was HB 1269. This bill reorganizes the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission to prohibit any newly appointed commissioner from being an employee, officer, or director of an oil and gas operator or service company. The results of this bill passing would be similar to restricting any practicing nurse, doctor, or medical professional from serving on a medical board. Rep. Scott from Grand Junction and I both fought against this bill and gained support once again from democrats Ed Vigil and Mike McLachlan. The bill passed and is now headed to the Senate.”

This is just another in a long chain of lies and intention deceptions distributed by members of the GOP this year as the struggle with their regained minority status. Yet the press continues to ignore them entirely.


Full story: Don Coram Lies (Dog Bites Man)

Where’s “easy-to-vote” Gessler now?

1
  by: Jason Salzman Mon April 15, 2013 at 1:27 PM MDT

Scott Gessler likes to soften his dissonant accusations of voter fraud by saying his job, as Secretary of State, is to make it "easy to vote but tough to cheat."

As Gessler told the Conservative Political Action Committee in October:

And I think most people would agree that when it comes to elections, it should be easy to vote but tough to cheat. And, you know, I’m focused on both efforts.

Actually, if you listen to Gessler, you know he delivers the "easy-to-vote, tough-to-cheat" line all the time.

What's Gessler thinking about the "easy-to-vote" part of the deal now, as country clerks have initiated a bill, currently making its way through the State Legislature, that would make voting easier and elections more efficient?

He's opposing the legislation for a number of reasons, one of which is his belief that Democrats are instituting a "partisan advantage," even though academics agree that voter conveniences, such as election-day and early registration, for example, do not favor one party over the other.

In response to Mike Rosen's assertion on KOA last week that Democrats will get more votes if they "make it easier for casual and lazy voters to vote," Gessler said, "You know, I think there's evidence to support that."

Rosen didn't question Gessler. Why would he, since they echo in the same chamber.

So we need a journalist to find out from Gessler 1) where is his evidence that voter conveniences produce partisan results, 2) why it matters anyway, unless he's against voting, and 3) why he's against key elements of an election bill that would do what Gessler says he wants–make voting easier?


Full story: Where’s “easy-to-vote” Gessler now?

Meet Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America

7
  by: Colorado Pols Fri April 12, 2013 at 11:06 AM MDT

prattbrownUPDATE: Lynn Bartels of the Post updates with a quote from Lasamoa Cross, girlfriend of Aurora shooting victim A.J. Boik:

“At the time, pundits like Larry Pratt rushed in to do media tours claiming that the shooting was some kind of United Nations conspiracy,” she said, in an e-mail. “Now a bunch of fringe gun groups are bringing him into Colorado for a fundraiser. This is not only an insult to me, but shows how completely out of touch these guys are.”

—–

The Denver Post's Lynn Bartels posted a brief blog last night about an upcoming fundraiser in Durango for the group seeking the longshot recall of Rep. Mike McLachlan. Speaking at this fundraiser is one Larry Pratt, the director of Gun Owners of America. As Bartels reports, Pratt has a number of most immoderate viewpoints, including a theory that the shooter in the Aurora theater mass murder last summer "didn't act alone"–and that the killing was related to "the United Nations’ small-arms treaty negotiations." As Mother Jones reported at the time:

Larry Pratt—the president of Gun Owners of America, a far-right Second Amendment group that's backed by prominent people like Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.)—has a different theory. Pratt believes the timing of Holmes' rampage, which left 12 people dead and 58 wounded, seemed designed to coincide with the upcoming negotiation of the United Nations Small Arms Treaty. A press release sent out to radio bookers on Tuesday advertising Pratt's availability noted that, "In an article posted at The New American…one expert even outlined a theory that Holmes didn't act alone, but was possibly 'enlisted' to carry out his violent act." Pratt, the publicist stated, was free for interviews on Holmes' "impeccable" timing.

(more…)


Full story: Meet Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America

Republicans Wage Pre-Emptive War on Election Bill

10
  by: Colorado Pols Tue April 9, 2013 at 9:30 AM MDT

AP's Ivan Moreno:

[An election reform] bill of more than 100 pages is expected to be introduced this week, likely sparking a big partisan fight over whether the changes benefit one party over the other.

Supporters of the changes, which also include eliminating the so-called "inactive voter" status, say the goal is to make voting more accessible.

"I think people are like me, they just want people engaged in the Democratic process," said Democratic Sen. Angela Giron, one of the bill sponsors. She insisted they didn't exclude Republicans from the process.

Republican Secretary of State Scott Gessler, who oversees elections and has butted heads with Democrats on a range of issues, said the bill was "written in complete secrecy excluding anyone who may have a different point of view."

What we know about the legislation in question, expected to drop tomorrow, is that it makes a number of changes to Colorado's election system, with an eye toward resolving unintended barriers to voting, and modernizing procedures to reflect the fact that voting registration is no longer paper-based. With the ability to instantly verify a voter's status and voting history, many longstanding practices, like a deadline for voter registration weeks before the actual election, no longer make sense–and actually create impediments to perfectly legal, eligible voters.

So naturally, Republicans led by Secretary of State Scott Gessler are screaming bloody murder. 

(more…)


Full story: Republicans Wage Pre-Emptive War on Election Bill

Balmer, Guzman, Court and Coram Advance Sensible Dog Legislation

9
  by: ProgressiveCowgirl Mon April 8, 2013 at 1:19 PM MDT

Let's all take a moment today to recognize a piece of well-written, sensible legislation. SB 13-226, the "Dog Protection Act," is on its way to the Senate floor after receiving unanimous committee approval. Cosponsors in the Senate are David Balmer (R-Centennial) and Lucia Guzman (D-Denver). Their House counterparts are Lois Court (D-Denver) and Don Coram (R-Montrose). 

The proposed legislation reacts to a rash of dog shootings by law enforcement, characterized by pet dogs and service animals killed without giving owners a chance to contain their pets. Some such incidents were captured on video, showing no trace of aggression on the dog's part. Most police officers aren't animal behavior experts and may mistake a friendly greeting for an aggressive display. 

To reduce needless deaths of non-dangerous dogs, the Dog Protection Act empowers a twenty-three member volunteer task force to create training for law enforcement officers on dealing with dogs. The legislation requires that, in non-violent situations, law enforcement must give dog owners a chance to contain their dogs before using lethal force. This requirement allows for flexibility according to any exigencies present, such as whether officers are responding to a call involving a dog that has bitten a person. 

(more…)


Full story: Balmer, Guzman, Court and Coram Advance Sensible Dog Legislation

Gessler vs. Democracy

11
  by: Jason Salzman Mon April 8, 2013 at 12:09 PM MDT
Scott Gessler.

Scott Gessler.

Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler made the rounds on conservative talk radio last week to stir up opposition to expected legislation that would give us more options when it comes to voting, stuff like providing a mail-in ballot for every eligible voter.

Basically, the legislation would make sure Colorado uses modern technology and election procedures to give people more ways to cast a ballot and to participate in our elections. And Gessler wants to stop it.

Colorado already has "really good elections," Gessler said conservatives in talk-radio land, bragging about Colorado's higher turnout than other states.

But why not do better? Even in a good year, over one-third of the voting-age population in Colorado doesn't go to the polls.

And even if everyone voted, what's wrong with giving people safe and easy voting choices? The bill in the State Legislature not only mandates the mail-in option, but also allows us to drop off our ballots at service centers and, if pushing buttons is your thing, to vote in person on election day or prior to it.

Not to sound all high-minded, but isn't America about giving everyone a chance to have their voice heard at the ballot box? Isn't offering the most best voting options and voter registration a baseline manifestation of that ideal?

Obviously, it is, so it was supremely ironic to hear our state's top election official, who's in charge of encouraging people to vote, arguing against basic improvements in our election system. 

(more…)


Full story: Gessler vs. Democracy

Taxing (The Hell Out Of) Legal Weed

28
  by: Colorado Pols Mon April 8, 2013 at 8:07 AM MDT
The state gets a cut of the green.

The state gets a cut of the green.

AP's Kristen Wyatt reports via the Durango Herald:

A legislative panel decided Friday that marijuana in Colorado could be taxed at rates above 30 percent. But voters would have to OK the taxes, and some lawmakers fear the state’s tax-skeptical public could reject such high rates.

A House-Senate panel set up to propose marijuana regulations agreed to ask voters to approve a 15 percent excise tax, plus a 15 percent sales tax on the newly legal drug. If the full Legislature agrees, voters would be asked about the taxes in November. Commercial pot sales will begin in January…

Republican Rep. Brian DelGrosso said many who voted to make marijuana legal did so because of the potential taxes it could raise for schools. But he worried that even tax fans could pause at taxes in excess of 30 percent.

…But most of the panel agreed with the tax rates, pointing out that the Legislature could lower them later. The tax measure passed 8-2.

The fact that Rep. Brian DelGrosso is even talking about such a large proposed tax without invoking the Boston Tea Party reveals something very important about the debate over implementation of Amendment 64, passed last year legalizing the recreational possession and sale of marijuana in Colorado. For our part, we have consistently argued for as high a tax on legalized marijuana as can be levied–and it seems likely that voters will indeed approve a hefty tax on legal pot that they would never support for other commercially sold products.

But how much is too much, folks? We don't have a good sense of the answer to that question. As a vice product that has been illegal for many decades, and using the taxation of, for example, tobacco as a guide, one would think that the public would tolerate a tax on pot that doubled the retail price of the product or more. On the other hand, the easily-quantifiable public costs of tobacco use do not cleanly apply in the case of marijuana–at least not yet.

One thing we agree with Rep. DelGrosso on wholeheartedly is that Amendment 64 was approved by voters to produce revenue for the state, in addition to the goals of policy harm reduction and reasonable, enforceable laws. Despite our state's stoner reputation, we'd say many if not a majority of the voters who approved Amendment 64 are not themselves pot smokers. Those are the voters who need to feel confidence in this process.

And they're in this for the money.


Full story: Taxing (The Hell Out Of) Legal Weed

Chutzpah: GOP Wants $1 Million To “Dispel” Gun Law “Myths”

12
  by: Colorado Pols Sat April 6, 2013 at 9:09 AM MDT

Almost lost in the day-long debate Thursday in the Colorado House over the "Long Bill" General Fund budget was one of some two dozen unsuccessful amendments proposed by Republicans. Offered by freshman GOP Rep. Bob Rankin, Amendment 12 sought $1 million additional dollars for the Colorado Tourism Office. The purpose? We'll let Rep. Rankin explain, but once you realize what he's asking for, it's really quite astonishing.


Can't see the audio player? Click here.

KAGAN: Representative Rankin, to the amendment.

RANKIN: Mr. Chairman, this um, this bill moves one million dollars from the so-called ‘accounting fund,’ eight million dollars, to the Colorado Tourism Office. And since the amendment doesn’t clearly explain it, I should probably discuss what I intend to be done with that one million dollars.

First of all, let me say I do not intend this discussion to be a return to the debate over gun control. However, what I would like to point out is that we have a current and evolving problem that I think we can easily solve. And that is that the perception of the hunting community about what’s going in, going on in Colorado is causing a significant problem. I mean, I have a whole stack here of emails,  and press releases that you may have seen. I mean recently, we just had our first two cancelations of shooting clubs who were coming to Colorado, there was one in Montrose for July, had about three hundred people showing up and they just canceled. And this is not, you know this is not a problem based on reality, it’s really a problem based on perception and misunderstanding. [Pols emphasis]

(more…)


Full story: Chutzpah: GOP Wants Million To “Dispel” Gun Law “Myths”

Meet The Face Of The Pro-Gun Recall Campaigns

21
  by: Colorado Pols Fri April 5, 2013 at 7:59 AM MDT

UPDATE: The Denver Post's Lynn Bartels did, to her credit, extract a qualified apology from hirsute pro-gun recall organizer Nick Andrasik (see photo below), who says today he would "probably not" again use the "c-word" and other offensive language to describe Democratic legislators if given the choice. The "situation is different," says Andrasik, meaning exposure to a light source other than the fixture in his mother's basement.

As for confidence in the ability of the recalls Andrasik is in charge of to succeed, we're afraid the damage is done.

—–

andrasik1

(more…)


Full story: Meet The Face Of The Pro-Gun Recall Campaigns

Dudley Brown Slouches Toward Bethlehem

36
  by: Colorado Pols Wed April 3, 2013 at 8:32 AM MDT
He'll put a jihad on you, too.

He’ll put a jihad on you, too.

UPDATE: As if that wasn't enough, FOX 31's Eli Stokols:

Dudley Brown, the executive director of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, has been added as a co-defendant in a lawsuit filed by a gay couple whose engagement photo was used without their consent in a political mailer last year.

Brown, who’s known for targeting GOP lawmakers who don’t adhere to strict conservative principles, allegedly planned and helped pay for the mailers distributed by Public Advocate of the United States, the group sued last fall by the Southern Poverty Law Center on behalf of the gay couple in the photo and the photographer who took it.

—–

One of the more important stories of the recent epic battle over gun safety legislation in Colorado, which ended in Democratic victory on their most important priorities, has been the role played by the organization Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, and that group's leader Dudley Brown. RMGO's political influence up to now has generally been wielded on the far right of the Republican primary process in Colorado, where they have factored heavily in recent red-on-red controversies like the choice of hard-right Sen. Tim Neville over Jim Kerr in the Colorado Senate (Neville's son is now RMGO's lobbyist).

After the passage of gun safety legislation by the Democratic-controlled General Assembly, Brown has vowed to take the fight outside his group's comfort zone in GOP intraparty politics, and "destroy" Colorado Democrats in 2014. It's noteworthy that apart from some initial outreach, the much larger National Rifle Association has largely taken a back seat to RMGO in Colorado's fight over gun safety bills this year.

As Think Progress reports, the growing profile of Dudley Brown and RMGO could become a major political liability.

As the Senate prepares to take up a comprehensive gun violence prevention plan later this month, gun advocates have amped up their already inflammatory rhetoric against any additional gun regulations. Ahead of President Obama’s visit to Colorado on Wednesday to promote the measure, one local gun organization promised to give him and other Democrats a hostile welcome…

“I liken it to the proverbial hunting season,” Brown says. “We tell gun owners, there’s a time to hunt deer. And the next election is the time to hunt Democrats.” [Pols emphasis]

The analogy between elections and hunting is a favorite among conservatives; former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin was widely condemned for her website’s map placing crosshairs over vulnerable Democratic districts in 2010.

Brown left the NRA in the 1990s because he felt the NRA was “kissing up to politicians.” The NRA, at the time, blasted Rocky Mountain Gun Owners as an “extreme right gun group” and called Brown the “Al Sharpton of the gun movement” for his inflammatory approach…

TP asserts that since that time the NRA has lurched right, and is arguably more aligned with the radical positions of the RMGO than ever before. It may be true, but we're not aware, for example, of the NRA having called for scrapping all background checks or screening for gun purchases at all as Brown has. Brown's interpretation of the Second Amendment, and the equivalent language in the Colorado constitution, is more or less that everyone, regardless of their record, has the right to any gun they want. To compare Brown's position to that of the general public on this issue, which supports universal background checks consistently above 80% in polling, is one good example of how far from the mainstream this man really is.

Nonetheless, as Politico reported yesterday afternoon, Dudley Brown's red-on-red warfare is going prime time. 

(more…)


Full story: Dudley Brown Slouches Toward Bethlehem