Schaffer attacks Coors on gun rights record

The Gazette ^ | May 15, 2004 | KYLE HENLEY

[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.