Gun-Grabbers Ousted by Colorado’s Recall Elections

By: Joshua Cook
21

At this time last year, Colorado was known as a purple state.  John Hickenlooper was known as a moderate, and he had specifically avoided engaging in discussion of gun control in the months leading up to the election.  Though the Aurora theater shooting occurred in Colorado, no new gun legislation was proposed or promoted in the state.

On November 6th, however, all of that seemed to change.  Due to a corrupt 2011 redistricting scheme which favored Democrats, Democrats took both the State House and Senate, and many people thought Colorado had gone blue permanently.  After the Sandy Hook shooting later that month, Hickenlooper immediately took the opportunity to push a gun control agenda.

Indeed, the Democrat legislature and governor worked together to create the most radically progressive legislation in the state’s 137 year history.  As part of that agenda, state Democrats worked to pass radical gun control legislation which made Colorado the battleground for gun control on a national scale.  Republicans fought hard against this, with a filibuster and convincing some Democrats to switch sides, which did prevent a few of the bills from passing even the legislature, but they were not able to stop the majority of the laws.

Among the laws which passed were background check legislation which prevented people from lending or bequeathing firearms to family members, taking away guns without due process, and magazine capacity limits which pushed companies employing over a thousand people out of the state and set the stage for nearly every firearm manufactured to be illegal.

To make matters worse the “moderate” and “most popular governor in the country” signed the bills knowing how unpopular they were – especially among the state’s rural population – and knowing that they were ambiguous enough to allow for severe problems with enforcement.

This prompted a statewide outcry.  All Colorado sheriffs vocally opposed the legislation, and nearly all of them joined John Caldara and the Independence Institute in a lawsuit attempting to overturn it.  Numerous counties have put the issue of secession from the state on next year’s ballot.  The most watched reaction, though, was the attempted recall of two State Senators, Angela Giron and John Morse.

John Morse was President of the Senate, and both he and Giron hailed from traditionally Democratic districts.  No politician has successfully been recalled in Colorado’s history.  Democrats had, perhaps predictably, also passed laws which would allow for easier voter fraud in the 2012 session.  Those supporting the recall were outspent 8 to 1.  Yet, on Tuesday, the recall succeeded, not just against one, but both.


Morse lost by a smaller margin, 51% to 49%, but Giron, whose district lies in the rural Democratic stronghold of Pueblo, lost by a margin of 56% to 44%.  Even Democrats supported the ouster, especially Giron’s where they made up 20% of recall votes.  In their analysis of the recall, Democrat leaders noted that Pueblo, though more Democratic, was less “liberal” than Morse’s more affluent district, because it was motivated primarily by blue collar and union interests.

This explanation highlights exactly what makes the recall petition so noteworthy.  Many people who vote for the Democrats do not embrace the vast majority of the progressive agenda.  As soon as Democrats pushed an extreme progressive agenda, including gun control, those people saw a separation between their own interests and Bloomberg-style liberals, and they joined libertarians and conservatives in pushing back.

This victory showed that grassroots efforts can make a difference, and it showed that Colorado is not the pure blue state that so many believed it was this spring.  It also showed that gun control is not as popular as liberals claim.  Equally importantly, though, it showed that if Democrats push too hard, they will alienate vital parts of their own base.

Nationwide, they can’t continue to use rhetoric to get votes from blue collar and rural voters while exclusively serving the interests of New York and California liberals.  It’s hardly a surprise that Hickenlooper is only polling even with Tancredo in Giron’s district today, though he won by a 14 point margin in 2010.

Democrats accuse Republicans of growing more extreme, and point to that trend as the reason the GOP has been losing votes recently.  Democrats would do well to heed their own advice, because the more they repeat the mistake they did in Colorado 2013, the greater risk they face of permanently alienating key voting blocs.

The following two tabs change content below.

Joshua Cook

Joshua Cook is a writer and a political activist. His articles have also been cited on sites such as DrudgeReport, InfoWars, Reason.com, WND.com, Breitbart.com, DailyCaller and FreedomOutPost.com. If you have any tips please email him at [email protected]

  • jac

    Way to go, Colorado!

  • guest

    Definitely, the liberty supporters in CO deserve credit, but ultimate thanks goes to the Lord.

    1 Thessalonians 5:18; Psalm 150:6

  • Alan Scott

    There is a very big aspect to this story that you’ve left out of an otherwise great summary. The Libertarian Party of Colorado sued the State Secretary of Colorado over his arbitrary deadline for candidates to file of 10 days after the announcing of the recall date. We won the suit, and it also over-ruled a law that Giron herself sponsored which would have made the recall a by-mail-only election. As a result, the live election meant lower turnout, which historically puts the incumbent at a disadvantage. Were it not for the lawsuit, the recall probably wouldn’t have been successful. More importantly, recalls would have become much more difficult in the future.

  • Kevin Merck

    Only your enemies want you disarmed.
    We are going to see a lot more of this.

  • Chris Moschini

    What a shame. A shame that the Democrats wasted their time in power on laws that just piss lawful gun owners off, like magazine limits, and a shame that the side that took control back doesn’t want reasonable limits on dangerous gun owners – they want everyone to have free access to guns no matter how much danger that puts us all in. No one wins today.

    • mshmsucks

      The problem, Chris, is that reason and danger are both relative and relativity is impossible to legislate.

      • Chris Moschini

        That’s very abstract. You just need as little legislation as possible drawing a bright line in an area of grey. Legislation that shows high reason takes great thought leaders and brave legislators. Neither was exhibited here.

        The example I always point to is Trademark Law. Not something you hear much about because it’s not terribly controversial. But its basic rules have been essentially unchanged for most of American history, because they nailed it the first time with reasonable laws. It’s not terribly controversial because the laws work well. Basically, to trademark something – go say it a lot. If someone else starts saying it, that’s when the government (courts) get involved. Otherwise it’s just people talking and that’s enough to satisfy the legal burden – no bureaucracy or forms or paperwork or lawyers, just go do what you’d naturally do to brand something, that satisfies the law.

        We can find similar with guns, we just have loud people on each side that aren’t bothering. They’re trying to ban them outright or ensure everyone even known felons have access. Doing it right is difficult – we agree there. Impossible? We disagree.

        • S

          Any amount of gun legislation is bad. Keep pushing people away from the legal gun market, they will end up buying their gun by other means which would allow them to have greater access to things civilians can’t own. The democrat mentality is a failure, most assume you can fix things with laws instead of changing the moral perspective of the people. You won’t get far making laws against the will of the citizens.

        • Bill

          The problem you have with any kind of legislation on firearms is that they undoubtedly create databases of individuals and attributes about them so that rights for a few can be infringed so that the majority can be safe. This creates the perfect conditions for the first example of gun control – Nazi Germany and Adolf Hitler’s genocide. It’s turn-key tyranny, plain and simple. To think that the US is magically inoculated from that kind of hard core tyranny growing up here – need I remind you of the NSA spying databases, the unconstitutional Patriot act and NDAA, Operation Fast and Furious… You would have to be blind to say tyranny isn’t already alive and well here in the US. There is no perfect gun control laws – the history of gun control laws is an utter disgrace. The gun control act of 1968 absolutely copied the first Nazi gun control act – the writers even had the documents translated from GERMAN before they copied them!

          Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property… Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.
          -Thomas Paine

          The fact is a society is always much safer when the rights of all are focused on and groups are not marginalized – the first gun laws in the US were against blacks from owing guns – it is about preventing a monopoly of violence, as Paine rightly knew.

          And as for being shot in a mass shooting, there is no silver bullet for this unless you want to talk about the suicidal and homicidal ideation caused by the psychotropic medication all of the people in the mass shootings were on. And even with this, mass shootings accounts for less than one percent of all shootings. Most are by gangs to gangs in inner-cities. That is mostly due to broken families. A far better solution in government is requiring 10 simple questions that you must answer correctly about the first 10 amendments of the US Constitution before you are allowed to VOTE. I ask you how many illegitimate, uninformed and complacent individuals would we be spared the consequences of their ignorance by simply requiring that they understand the concepts embodied in the founding documents of this country – written by men far more educated and wise than the vast majority of the populous today.

          • Chris Moschini
          • Cas

            Yea, no, your use of a Wikipedia site renders your whole argument invalid.

            I’m sorry, but I’d rather have the risk and have my rights to bear arms without restrictions and gun control. Criminals do not follow the law and there is a black market out there. If they really want it they can get it. “My rights trump your dead!”

          • mshmsucks

            In terms of gun control, the reference to Godwin’s law is silly and shows a lack of understanding and/or disregard of the history of the rise of the third reich and the use of gun control to quell potential resistance to Hitler’s rise. It comes up in gun control debates because it is simply apropo.

        • mshmsucks

          There are several areas you in your response that you should bolster.

          1. You never define what your end game would be. In “Chris Moschini” land: What would the laws on gun ownership be? Who would be restricted from owning a gun? How would those people be kept from gaining access to a gun? How do you know if your law is effective? Is there an acceptable level of death via gun that you can peg as the goal to say, “we’ve won”!? Are there specific flaws in the current system that you think should be resolved? How do you resolve them and weigh the benefits of against the rights of those whom you aren’t intending to target but are inconvenienced by your law?

          2. I think that your use of trademark law is an inadequate example as a “perfect” law to be pointed to and that you do not understand trademark law in the manner in which you think you do. Since you enjoy wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_trademark_law#History_of_US_trademark_law. Also, there is a difference between gun laws and trademark law at every level of government. In one instance, there is a strict prohibition against most levels of government for regulating gun ownership, on the other hand, there is specific grants of power to most levels of government on regulation of commerce in many forms and trademarks are the use of words in relation to commerce.

          So, in relation to guns, Congress is finding an end run around the prohibitions set upon it. In relation to trademark law, Congress would be exercising it’s powers under the Interstate Commerce clause in order to provide recognition of trademarks nationwide.

    • Tom W.

      I think we passed a good law in Fla. restricting those having been committed from purchasing firearms. I agree with you, laws like ones restricting mag capacity are ridiculous, but that there can be common-sense safeguards like preventing certifiable individuals from acquiring weapons. Back in the day, ol’ Joe at the hardware store knew better than to sell a gun to the town crazy person. Nowadays, no one knows each other. A little prevention can go a long way. And yes, I’m a hardcore libertarian.

    • Sup

      Look at Chicago and Detroit and then tell me how gun control works…you just have no clue and should not be aloud to post…the criminals will always have guns…that is why they are criminals…wake up!!!!!!

      • fmacleide

        “Allowed” not “aloud” Chris DOES have a right to post (see 1A.)

      • Chris Moschini

        That’d be the unhelpful extremist point of view, yes, thanks for spelling it out nicely.

  • Tom B

    Liberals are nothing more than social engineers that want to create a utopian world that will never exist as long as humans are alive.

  • sc2pilot

    This is not really a story. They recalled two senators who already had other problems staying popular. The laws are not going to be magically overturned because the Republicans picked up two seats and have an ever-so-slightly smaller minority.

  • Sagebrush

    The sitting administration and congress have put a situation in place where most of the corporate elite and ultra rich are immune to investigations, charges and penalties under rule of law. Refusal to enforce rule of law has allowed the corporate elite and ultra rich to financially rape the rest of the American upper and middle class general population. Those Americans are finally beginning to realize they can’t trust their corrupt government to protect their wealth, their property or their way of life. They also realize they can’t protect these things themselves if they let that corrupt government continue to disarm them. This recall is just the beginning, in the future anti gun politicians will find themselves unelected or unemployed if they don’t listen to american firearm owners and use common sense when pushing campaign promises or legislation that concerns firearms and the Second Amendment.

    The United States is 3rd in from the top for Murders throughout the World . But if you take out Chicago, Detroit, Washington DC , and New Orleans, the United States is 4th from the Bottom for Murders.

    These 4 Cities also have the toughest Gun Control Laws in the United States.

  • Sally_Oh

    Love you, Ben Swann. Please please change the white type on black background. The words jump around and it is physically painful to stay on this page. Baby boomers have more money and outnumber everyone else alive. We can’t read this contrast. Thank you.