Schaffer attacks Coors on gun rights record

The Gazette ^ | May 15, 2004 | KYLE HENLEY

[neverdem]

U.S. Senate hopeful Bob Schaffer charged opponent Pete Coors, the brewery titan who has contributed to hundreds of campaigns during the years, with supporting congressional candidates who opposed gun rights.

Schaffer, a former congressman from Larimer County, and Coors are vying for the GOP nod to replace Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell, who is stepping down after two terms for health reasons.

The attack on Coors came Thursday at a candidates forum hosted by the Pikes Peak Firearms Coalition at the Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 4051 on Pikes Peak Avenue.

The forum mostly focused on gun issues, an area on which the two candidates have few differences. The men claim to be ardent supporters of the Second Amendment, opponents of gun control efforts and firearms enthusiasts.

Schaffer, however, accused Coors of supporting 16 members of Congress, through the Coors Brewery Corp. Political Action Committee, that received F grades from the National Rifle Association for their votes on gun issues.

“I ask: How did these people get elected and who backs them?” Schaffer said. “They all received campaign finance funding from the Coors PAC. This is a record. I’ve not contributed to people that want to go to Washington to destroy the Second Amendment.”

Coors defended the contributions by noting that the PAC distributed funds mostly based on issues surrounding beer sales, not gun control.

“The PAC is an employee PAC, managed by employees, that I don’t have anything to do with,” he said. “I don’t even see the list they contributed to.”

Although the forum did not touch on the war in Iraq or how to jump start the nation’s stuttering economy — the two hot-button issues of the campaign — the candidates devoted time to their histories of support for gun rights.

Coors is a past president of Ducks Unlimited, a pro-hunting organization, and appeared in an NRA advertising campaign during the 1980s.

“For some reason, I felt that guns would be an important part of my life, and they have been,” Coors said. “I just hate like heck when somebody talks about taking those rights away from me.”

Schaffer said as a state senator, he sponsored legislation that would expand the ability of people to carry concealed weapons. He said he co-sponsored the “Make My Day” law, which allows people to use deadly force against someone on their property when their lives are threatened.

“There is no public official in Colorado who has a stronger record of defending the Second Amendment than I do,” Schaffer said. “Being proven in the battlefield and defending our rights . . . ought to carry some weight.”

Although they claim to support gun rights, each candidate sidestepped some questions from the audience of about 100 firearms enthusiasts.

Schaffer refused to answer questions about repealing or changing the Brady Act, which requires background checks for handgun purchases, and other gun control measures. Coors said he would vote to repeal the Brady Act, but Schaffer said he would not answer for fear the media would use it against him.

“In these campaigns, as a candidate, I want to be in control of my message,” Schaffer told the audience. “This is a real danger. You need to understand the media’s interest. You have to know I will never vote in a way that harms our Second Amendment rights.”

Coors steered clear of a question about banning different types of ammunition, including bullets capable of penetrating police officers’ bulletproof vests.

“It seems clear to me that in changing federal law . . . you risk ending up with a mess,” Coors said. “I’m learning you have to be very careful when you say you’ll support such and such an amendment or such and such a bill."

Schaffer said he would not support efforts to ban different kinds of ammunition.

CONTACT THE WRITER: 1-303-837-0613 or khenley@gazette.com

[neverdem]

Too bad the Spineless Supremes refused to even consider that.

Could either of you refresh my memory? Was a case based on the Lautenberg amendment challenged on its ex post facto provision, but SCOTUS declined to grant "cert", i.e. refused to hear the case?

[neverdem]

The Schaeffer brand can still be found in parts of NYC, IIRC.

[Dan from Michigan]

Coors steered clear of a question about banning different types of ammunition, including bullets capable of penetrating police officers’ bulletproof vests.

This means he's either uneducated about that bill or a coward. I hope it's the former.

But as of now, I'd be backing Schaffer.

[supercat]

I agree. The point is that it also disarms folks who have been. By not distinguishing, Coors opened himself to unprincipled ads by Salazar that mischaracterize his position (what other kind do rats run?).

Though Congress had no authority to do that either. Ex post facto legislation and all that. The notion, however, that someone's rights should be taken away without them even being accused, much less convicted, of any crime should be chilling to anyone worthy of being called an "American".

BTW, I also wish some politician (let me know if Ron Paul has--I'd be impressed) would come out and say that the Founders recognized that it would be necessary from time to time to amend the Constitution, and provided two means for doing so:

1. Both branches of Congress approve the change by supermajority vote, then 3/4 of the state legislatures approve the change by whatever method their individual constitutions direct.
2. A constitutional convention is called by 3/4 of the state.

I don't think they intended to allow what is my now the most common method:

3. Have the President and a simple majority of Senators appoint at leat five men to the Supreme Court who will say that the Constitution says what they want it to say, rather than what it actually says.

The Constitution was written in plain language so that ordinary people could read and understand it. The people who claim that it's an intricate document that can only really be understood by the Men in Black Robes are lying. Unfortunately, their lie has been so often repeated that it's become accepted as truth.

[supercat]

Could either of you refresh my memory? Was a case based on the Lautenberg amendment challenged on its ex post facto provision, but SCOTUS declined to grant "cert", i.e. refused to hear the case?

Doctor Timothy Emerson remains in prison to this day on the basis that he possessed a firearm despite the fact that his wife had a restraining order against him. He did not commit any other crime, but the Supreme Court refused to hear his case.

[neverdem]

Thanks for refreshing my memory about Emerson. IIRC, that means they couldn't get four votes to agree to hear it. A supermajority of SCOTUS is shameless.

[ModelBreaker]

Supercat. You and I see eye to eye on the constitutional issues.

[ModelBreaker]

Have you seen the Rocky Mountain News poll--a little earlier than Tarrance. It shows shaffer running about 5 points stronger against Salazar than Coors. You always have good insight on polling issues. I was wondering if you had any thoughts.

[KQQL]

CO:

Salazar 52% - Coors 41%
Salazar 53% - Shaffer 36%
Tarrance Group(R)
MoE+/-4.5% (Likely Voters) 04/28
Coors 50% - Shaffer 32%

Salazar 48% - Shaffer 37%
Salazar 52% - Coors 36%
Rocky Mountain News/News 4 poll
MoE+/-4.9% (Reg Voters) 04/20-23/04

Salazar 47% - Coors 41% - Others 3%
Salazar 49% - Shaffer 37% - Others 5%
Rasmussen Poll
MoE+/-4.5% (likely Voters) 04/14/04
-----

I will have to wait and see on this race, it kinda early.