U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line

(D) George Stern

(D) A. Gonzalez

(R) Sheri Davis

40%

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
October 18, 2010 07:24 PM UTC

Golyansky's Gun Case: The Part You Haven't Heard

  • 72 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

TV ads attacking GOP Senate candidate Ken Buck, regarding his actions while working in the U.S. Attorney’s office to spike a case against an accused illegal gun dealer with Republican political connections, have been playing heavily for almost two weeks. As we’ve discussed several times, the case of Gregory Golyansky, and actions Buck improperly took to assist his defense, were originally made an issue in the Senate race by Buck’s primary opponent Jane Norton–Norton’s prediction that the case would come back to haunt Buck have proven accurate.

But the ad from Campaign Money Watch, like news reports on the case this election season, only tells part of the story here. The ad accurately reports that Buck was investigated for ethics violations, and that Buck’s assistance to Golyansky’s defense–while employed by the prosecution–was key to Golyansky “getting off the hook” on a number of serious gun charges. Golyansky was ultimately convicted of only one misdemeanor charge, but even that was enough to disallow him from selling firearms through his pawn shops in the future.

In a must-read guest column today in the Denver newspaper, former GOP Rep. Bob Barr, also an ex-U.S Attorney and board member of the National Rifle Association, hammers Buck’s actions to contravene the prosecution of this case. Barr rejects the notion that Buck was somehow acting conscientiously, and asserts that Buck’s actions directly resulted in lesser charges for Golyansky. Barr also notes that it was a Republican, John Suthers, who ultimately reprimanded Buck–this was not, as Buck as tried to claim subsequently, a “partisan effort” to discredit him. As a fellow Republican, what would be Barr’s interest in attacking Buck if it wasn’t legitimate concern?

And there is still another piece of this story that hasn’t been reported yet, at least not in relation to Ken Buck’s responsibility and involvement: how many people died on the wrong end of guns put on the street by Gregory Golyansky?

In June of 2000, reporter Dave Olinger of the Denver newspaper published a story titled “Pawnshop’s guns tied to gangs.” This story lays out the systematic way in which multiple-quantity gun purchases were made at Golyansky’s pawn shop–one woman purchased sixty-six guns from ABC Loan, many of which turned up on the streets of Los Angeles and used by gang members in crimes. Another purchaser, according to this story, came from New Jersey, obtained a Colorado ID and immediately began making large purchases of multiple firearms. This is the sort of activity that drew the interest of federal agents to Golyansky.

This story alleges that the 66 handguns bought by one woman, Stella Spears, were in fact “straw purchases” of guns made on behalf of one Randy “Rambo” Canister, who was too young to buy guns at the time, and who the story identifies as a member of the Corner Pocket Crips, an LA-area street gang. Federal prosecutors told Olinger that at least eight guns from Golyansky’s shop, traceable to Spears’ purchases on behalf of Canister, had been seized in the Los Angeles area.

But that wasn’t the worst of it: in 2005, Randy “Rambo” Canister was sentenced to life for a triple murder in Aurora. In June of 2005, Kieran Nicholson of the Denver newspaper wrote of Canister’s conviction for the execution-style murders of three people, helped by the testimony of the sole wheelchair-bound survivor, who testified that she and the other victims were stripped and sexually assaulted before being shot from behind.

In the 2000 article by Olinger, it’s reported that fully 40% of multiple gun purchases traceable to criminal arrests in the state of Colorado were made at Golyansky’s pawn shop: an astounding percentage considering how many gun shops there are in the state. The story also documents how buyers traveled from all around the state–and nation–to buy guns from Golyansky’s little shop.

As we’ve recounted in previous posts, it was Golyansky’s heretofore-underreported conversative political connections that apparently led to now-state Sen. Shawn Mitchell seeking out Buck in the U.S. Attorney’s office for “recommendations” on a defense attorney after Golyansky’s indictment. And Buck later fed the helpful internal information from his office back to that defense attorney, leading to the ethics investigation and reprimand in the video above.

Today, Golyansky is no longer allowed to sell guns, but the full facts of the cases that led to his indictment are a connection just now being made in the Senate race. Safe to say that the ads about the scandal stand to become much worse with this information added, and there is still time in the next two weeks for the ugly details to further damage Buck’s campaign.

Tweet
Share

Comments

72 thoughts on “Golyansky’s Gun Case: The Part You Haven’t Heard”

  1. I was away from CO and copols for 12 days. I won’t go back over previous threads. But, I am glad to see this being reported now. This Golyansky ought to be in jail and Buck’s role, as well as Sen. Mitchell’s, in preventing his complete prosecution need to be widely publicized.

  4. “fully 40% of multiple gun purchases traceable to criminal arrests in the state of Colorado were made by Golyansky’s pawn shop:”  Buck should have gotten more than a reprimand and certainly doesn’t belong in the U.S. Senate.  He put politics above the safety of Colorado citizens in this case.

            1. Obviously the crime drop had nothing to do with Buck, because Buck was helping criminals obtain guns without consequence. Maybe crime would have gone down even more without that.

                2. Ken locked up lots of rapists. He was tougher on it than anyone else had been. I know nobody takes you seriously anymore, but your ignorance still pisses me off.

                    2. You made a claim that Ken Buck “was tougher on it (rape) than anyone else had been.”. That would be a comparison statement you’ve made. My question is what are you comparing him to? Are you saying he is tougher than other district attorneys or previous Weld County D.A.s?

                      This is the problem with your ridiculous unsubstantiated blanket statements. You have a bad habit of making shit up and when called on to back up your claims you run away or deflect. This is why you have zero credibility. Yet you incredibly still expect us to just take you at your word.

                      So come on ya mental midget, let’s see some facts to back up this latest claim. Otherwise we’ll have to conclude that Buck is no better on prosecuting rape as any other D.A. and quite possibly worse.

                    3. Meaning the people before him were not as tough on crime. Use a little common sense next time.

                    4. The one with the inequalities? Fundamentally you need at least two numbers to say one of them is the biggest.

                      You’ve never provided any citation for the 50% number, so AFAICT it’s made up, and you have nothing to compare it with.

                      This is terrible math even for you.

                    6. I can’t think of anything Buck hasn’t lied about, so Occam’s Razor says that’s also a lie.

                      Next week I’m sure he’ll say crime went up by 50% and deny ever saying anything otherwise.  

                    7. Do you see how completely ridiculous pulling numbers and statistics outta your ass is??

                    8. he must be the bestest DA ever at everything!

                      It’s kind of like a very young child who thinks his mommy is the smartest woman in the world and his daddy is the strongest man.

  5. Of course, tying Buck to the slimeball Golyansky is damaging, but thank you for the follow up on the history of Golyansky and his pedaling firearms in Denver and beyond.

    Golyansky is the worst kind of scum alive – a horrible human being protected by the flag of false patriotism.

      1. Seems to be dropping in quality along with Buck’s poll numbers.

        Either that or I’m being generous about prior quality. If the next two weeks really do consist of Beej copy/pasting “I know you are but what am I,” like this, I guess we’ll know.

          2. Your inability to recognize when you have lost an argument, or when you’ve started to hurt the candidates you support, is indicative of a low quality troll. Sorry. There are good trolls and bad trolls, not at all determined by the quantity of posts.

            Sometimes, in your case, it’s the reverse.

  6. Guns don’t kill people; people kill people. If they didn’t have a gun, they would use something else. And we have a 2nd amendment right to own and purchase guns.

    2. I realize that you’re a fucking moron who can’t conceive a constitutional argument so sophisticated that it doesn’t fit on a sign at a Tea Bagger rally, but it is worth pointing out that the 2nd Amendment does not bar reasonable restrictions on the right to bear arms–including restrictions on the right of criminals to own and purchase guns.

      1. Some dude on the Bench named Scalia had this to say, Beej….

        “Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

                1. Beej knows that, his trolling style relies on flooding a thread with his factless bullshit in hopes that there will too much of it to respond to. A textbook troll.

                    1. Suthers said it was a minor aberration in an otherwise stellar career. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

                    2. Suthers lets a serial killer out to kill again.  Buck aids and abets a gun dealer with Republican ties: “fully 40% of multiple gun purchases traceable to criminal arrests in the state of Colorado were made by Golyansky’s pawn shop:”

                    3. Really, is anyone surprised that the junction between the Saturday Night Special gun peddling underworld and Republican politics is Shawn Mitchell and Ken Buck?

        1. Defenders of the Constitution. If these buyers passed their instacheck, why would Golyansky refuse their business? Are you asking that Golyansky psychically know that they would be used in crimes? It’s bullshit!

          1. 3184 children and teens were killed with guns in 2006.

            More preschoolers were killed by guns than cops that year too.

            American children are at more risk from guns than any other industrialized nation in the world by a factor of 35:1

            Every day 80 people die from guns.

            Studies show that 1 percent of gun stores sell the weapons traced to 57 percent of gun crimes.  According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), the dealer that armed the DC area sniper is among this small group of problem gun dealers that “supply the suppliers” who funnel guns to the nation’s criminals.

            http://www.neahin.org/programs…

            From a Post article, which you probably won’t read,

            About 40 percent of the confiscated handguns identified in The Post’s analysis were sold by ABC Loan, a tiny store on East Colfax Avenue. The Post also found that ABC Loan ranked among the nation’s leading sellers of guns commonly identified as “Saturday Night Specials” to multiple-handgun customers.

            In case you didn’t know, the man you defend is the owner of the tiny ABC Loan.

            http://extras.denverpost.com/n…

            You want to defend the Constitution GOP Warrior, I applaud you. Don’t lump in swine like Golyansky into that defense.He’s part of that 1% of losers making the problem even worse than it already is.

            And of course, Golyansky friggin’ knew the guns he sold would kill people. You know why, guns kill people, that’s the only thing they do. Why would Golyansky refuse their business? Maybe because he’s got a f***ing conscience and doesn’t feel like pedaling death to poor people in poor neighborhoods. Check out the quote from the business owner right across the street from Golyansky in the article.

            IMHO, and I’m not looking to convince you nor anyone else here, the 2nd Amendment concerns itself with the ‘security of a free state’ and ‘a well regulated Militia’. Only in that sense is there a right for people to keep and bear arms.

            Americans don’t need guns to be safer. Americans need to reduce the number of guns to be safer.

            1. When faced with real statistics and data, bj and GOPwarrior stick their fingers in their ears and scroll down.

              Too bad we’ll never get a calm, rational debate about gun ownership in this country. But thanks for contributing, Car.

  7. Buck’s clearly improper communication to a defense attorney about a pending prosecution was not only contrary to ethical and professional standards that govern attorneys; it also represented an act of disloyalty toward his superior – U.S. Attorney Strickland.

    Well, TeaPublicans, you are known by the gods before whom you kneel.

    “Chickenshit”, by the way, is a phrase my dad would have used. Please, Pols, don’t attribute its origin to me. Just an innocent little reference. I’d never say such a thing myself.

      1. I served under Mr. Strickland at the U.S. Attorney’s office and yes, he certainly had political ambitions but to call him “a posturing S.O.B.” is simply silly and not at all true.

        Mr. Strickland is smart and a good executive who can analyze a problem and come up with a reasonable solution as well as anyone I’ve ever met.

        Even if he was “a posturing S.O.B.,” that doesn’t not excuse Mr. Buck’s behavior.  

        1. If you served under him, you know he brought the case just to make himself look tough on guns after Columbine, despite everybody else dropping it like a hot potato. I suppose you worked with Ken, then?

          1. All U.S. Attorneys have areas of the law they want to emphasize. In Mr. Strickland’s case, he wanted to emphasize and prosecute criminal cases where guns were involved. How do you know he brought this case “to make himself look tough on guns after Columbine . . .?” What eveidence do you have for that statement?

            But again, even if you knew what you’re talking about that does not excuse Mr. Buck’s unethical behavior. Mr. Strickland’s motive doesn’t give Mr. Buck the right to violate legal ethics and pass on information to opposing counsel. More precisely, even if Mr. Strickland wanted to “look tough on guns after Columbine . . .” that does not excuse Mr. Buck.

            1. I think you know I’m telling the truth. Buck received a letter of reprimand, apologized for his mistake, and that was that. Are you jealous of his success or something?

      1. If they thought he was bad, the would have endorsed Bennet. Ken Buck is well loved by Weld County and overwhelmingly won re-election. The only people opposed to him being a senator in Weld are those who love him so much they want him to continue as D.A.

        2. That’s a great idea for Buck.

          He seems to be really good at it.  The good people of Weld county seem to think so.  I’m only familiar with a couple of his prosecutions – they seemed to go well.  

          There was that search warrant thingy, but what’s a little overreach between neighbors with nothing to hide.

          But Buck stays DA, Bennet goes back to DC – 2012 we start all over (well- in about 10 weeks, but you know what I mean).

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

124 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!