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%
August 13, 2015 11:39 AM UTC
19 Comments
Another Elected Retard from El Paso County. I thank my fellow El Pasoans for displaying their complete ignorance every time there's an election.
My diary about the Oathkeepers standoff on Kos.I wanted to ask some of the Polsters who are knowledgeable about mining law: Does the 1955 law in fact protect public lands from random public claims, superseding the 1872 law, when there are conflicts about ownership of surface mining rights? High Country News seems to think so.
Today, Oathkeepers is calling for a new "security mission"to protect miners from the Federal Government at the White Hope mine in Lewis and Clark County, Montana. It appears to be a dispute over surface mining claims, between the claim owners, Intermountain Mining, and the US Forest Service, which says that new regulations invalidate the old claims.
Laws about mining on Forest Service Lands are controversial, and sometimes contradict each other. The Oathkeepers are relying on a 1955 law, which does not favor their cause. High Country News' Marshall Swearingen writes:
If the White Hope miners do succeed in forcing the issue into court, precedent is not on their side; private property mining rights on USFS land have been decided in favor of public access to public lands.
Mama: I am hearing of the 1955 mining related law for the first time. Thanks for sharing that. What is not being mentioned is that if the claims for the White Hope Mine are patented, then those claims likely are no longer public land. We've had access disputes here in Colorado, for some of the 14ers, that revolved around patented mining claims (Lincoln, Bross, Democrat, Wilson Peak). There are requirements to keep a mine claim active. There is a reference to some sort of dispute in the 1980s regarding the White Hope, but no details. The references to the 1955 law sound interesting, but must be considered as inconclusive, again, in the absence of more details,
I tried to access the link for the Sugar Pine Mine in Oregon, but nothing came up. Lumping the Cliven Bundy issue into disputes over mining claims isn't really relevant except for his similar use of extremist militia types.
When did Mr. Swearingen write his piece for HCN?
In any case, guess what would happen if these extremist military types toting guns were black.You think this crap would be tolerated by law enforcement at any level coming from a black Cliven Bundy? Rhetorical question of course.
CHB, He wrote one piece in 2013: https://www.hcn.org/blogs/goat/forest-service-wields-an-uncommon-mining-law
Swearingen wrote another excellent "Dispatch" just a day ago, about growing tensions as the Oathkeepers are barring people fromf the disputed public land. Swearingen does discuss the two laws. I'm getting that the 1872 law allowed miners to "stake a claim" on public land, while the 1955 Multiple Surface Use Act required miners to comply with USFS regulations, have a plan that complies with environmental law, etc.
You know, all of that "Federal overreach" they hate so intensely.
"Lumping the Cliven Bundy issue into disputes over mining claims isn't really relevant except for his similar use of extremist militia types."
Ah, actually – that's the point.
I thought we were a country of laws … let the lawyers figure this out.
Why the need to call in the "militia" wannabes?
Seems to me, the push to undo the 15 round limit on magazines has a lot to do with miners and ranchers who don't want to go through the proper legal channels and/or pay their lawful share of fees and/or follow the laws that dictate where they can and can not operate.
Instead they hope superior military firepower can allow them to avoid following the law.
Otherwise – why did the mine owner accept the Oath Keepers help? Does he know he is not in compliance and simply does not want to follow the law – like Cliven Bundy?
The "militia" is the entire story here – if this mine owner was law abiding, he'd follow the law and bring in lawyers to try to fight against anything he thought was wrong. Instead he's got a "militia" to do that … if this is allowed to stand, then every Tom, Dick and Harry is going to get their personal militia and we are on the road to Mogadishu.
The mine owners are two old guys, who've been mining that claim for years. They named it "White Hope" – I wonder what that signifies?
The mine owners called in the Oathkeepers because they screwed up their own paperwork, invalidating their surface mining claim. Plus, they built some structures, stored some explosives on the property, and put up fences and "No Trespassing" signs. Just two ornery old cusses that don't want any goddam gubmint interference. And they refuse to file a new compliance plan.
The Forest Svc doesn't particularly want a confrontation, just wants them to comply with laws. There's an active EPA cleanup down the road, with trucks moving tons of contaminated material out every day – this employs many of the people in the town of LIncoln, Montana.
The people in town aren't too enthused about a possible media circus and loss of jobs working the EPA cleanup job.
But Federal prosecutors are initiating a lawsuit. Not an armed standoff, just a day in court, which supposedly is all these guys wanted to try to clear up their prior claim to surface mining rights.
http://helenair.com/news/local/his-day-in-court-miner-speaks-about-dispute-with-forest/article_e2863cc5-2fec-5b4a-ba35-0cc37cccdcea.html
Just how do you get to be an American patriot while refusing to recognize the federal government which is the one and only government of the United States of America. If the "Feds" are your enemy, the United States of America, as in all those patriotic Proud to be an American songs (God Bless the USA) is your enemy because that's what it is. America is the federal government. The constitution they say they love is the constitution not of the individual states but of the United States so you can't recognize that either if you don't recognize the federal government. Yet they claim to be USA loving, constitution loving patriots?
What are these people talking about? What are they using for brains? What ever happened to teaching civics so Americans can know what their country is and how it works? Can we pack Colorado Springs up and move it to Texas? STAT?
They believe the county sheriff is the ultimate arbiter of the U.S. Constitution – not the congress, not the executive branch, not the courts … the humble county sheriff. Funny how it's the county sheriffs who won't enforce the 15 round limit on magazines – gee, it's just too hard to do, they say … wink, wink.
They've concocted some irrational rationale to justify all their law breaking. It's based in some kooky interpretation of 12th century common law that maybe was or maybe was not practiced at various times and places somewhere, at sometime … or at least that's what they heard from their uncle one time.
Here's some more about those who were at Bundy's ranch, and those who are most likely at White Hope Mine
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jjmacnab/2015/04/14/where-are-they-now-the-bundy-supporters/
Pretty sure this is the same heavily-armed idiot who's "patrolling" the streets of Ferguson now., who says that the President is a "mulatto" and a "secret Muslim". If it is the same guy, his name is Jerry DeLemus, according to the Forbes article.
Meanwhile, in Ferguson, peaceful (black) protesters and journalists are being arrested for taking video of police actions.
Sorry, I don't see the relationship between the wacky oath keepers and the CO county sheriffs not being able to enforce the 15 round magazine limit. I'm a Democrat and a gun owner and the CO legislature passed a law that is unenforceable.
It is far too easy to go to a neighboring state to purchase either magazines or clips that exceed the 15 round limit or simply purchasing a 15 round magazine here in the state and remove the magblock limiting a standard 19 round 9mm magazine to 15.
The legislation was a complete knee jerk reaction to the Sandy Hook and Aurora theater mass shootings which were both terrible incidents.
If our legislators had any sense whatsoever they would have passed a law requiring more comprehensive mental health coverage for residents and not go on some fools errand.
Remember the passage of that unenforceable law cost us two Democratic seats during the recall elections and a third seat during our last election cycle.
Right – it's always the mental health issue. The legislature tried that, but Steve King nixed it because he was running for elected office on the Western Slope (after being term limited) and didn't want to piss of the RMGO so he pulled his mental health/guns policy – this was two years ago if I am not mistaken, maybe 18 months.
In other words, "mental health" is the issue the gun lobby uses to misdirect and deflect against the real issues.
And about those “lost seats” – we got two of them back and will get the other in 2016 and then some.
Wow, I must have hit a nerve. It is a mental health issue. Both shooters in the Aurora and Sandy Hook massacres were severely mentally disturbed. If you can't grasp that then you're confused.
As far as getting the seats back I sure hope so, but only if Democrats stop shooting themselves in the foot… pun intended.
I don't disagree. But the gun lobby does.
They USE mental health as a way to deflect from the real issues … just look at how Steve King killed, with the blessing of RMGO, policy he had sponsored that addressed mental health and guns. If they really thought mental health was how to solve the issue – they would have followed through with King's legislation. Instead, there was some "problem" with the legislation – there always is.
As for shooting yourself in the foot – that's RMGO and the Colorado GOP's specialty these days. They don't realize it yet, but they are increasingly seen as the pro militia lobby – not the gun lobby.
The establishment gun lobby (establishment GOP) increasingly supports gun control that the majority of Americans also support.
The 15 round limit, or 10 in other states, is common sense – we see the carnage that high powered weapons and unlimited ammunition capacity bring. We don't need to listen to the gun extremists to understand this is true – we are seeing it over and over and over.
The usual suspects – unenforceable, ineffective – are the short term attempts to derail that legislation mostly for the benefit of the militia movement. Over the long term, the benefits will become more and more clear by the day.
So, does the US have that many more violently mentally ill people than, say, every other civilized society? Because, that's the only explanation you could have for why the US has many more times per capita gun deaths than any other civilized society.
It's not just a mental health issue — we've got too many damn guns!
I don't disagree. But the gun lobby does.
It's an all of the above solution – gun control, universal healthcare, targeted healthcare help for acute mentally ill/substance abuse, gun control that helps take guns away from dangerous people, storing guns properly, trigger locks, safes, reduced income inequality and give oppty to more people (alleviate stress, anxiety).
There is so much that can and should be done.
At least Stevie King is gone.
As to the Oathkeepers and their ilk, they're Birchers. With the internet.
COgator, the connection is that the same people are ginning up outrage. Many (not all) of the County Sheriffs who signed the letter to Hickenlooper saying that they wouldn't enforce the mag limit are also Oathkeepers, or "Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers", like Terry Maketa. The gene pool is kind of shallow on that end.
I love Venn diagrams. 🙂