Vote Pro-Gun in the Primary Elections

A view from RMGO's Political Action Committee

August 7, 2006 - Tomorrow both of Colorado's major political parties will have their Primary elections.  Since the Democrat party is largely 98% - 100% anti-gun, we'll confine our remarks to the GOP.

In many areas of the state, the primary election IS the election. If you vote in November but failed to vote in a primary during a hot race, you have only yourself to blame if (when) the Republican candidate sells out your gun rights. In areas where Republicans vastly outnumber Democrats, a smart gun-rights activist will always vote in the GOP primary.

With that in mind, I'll give you my personal assessment (I've been a professional political consultant for 17 years, and have a decent track record of determining who is going to be pro-gun as well as who isn't) as well as RMGO's viewpoint (actually, our PAC's) of the hotly contested primaries around the state.

NOTE: RMGO PAC does not endorse candidates who are not willing to answer our tough survey 100%, regardless of their opponent.

5th Congressional District:

Dudley's pick: Doug Lamborn
RMGO's pick: Doug Lamborn
Gun Owners of America's pick: Doug Lamborn

This race is race is a gun owners' best case: With a field of six Republicans running for the nomination (and the winner sure to be elected), one might think there would be lots to choose from. There isn't: Doug Lamborn is the only choice.

Congressman Joel Hefley has been in that seat for 20 years -- maybe one of the most conservative seats in America. Hefley has never pushed any conservative issues: on guns, he's merely reactive. What has Hefley done for freedom? Squat - Jack Squat.

That being said, we don't need another reactive member of Congress. We want a true gun rights hero.

There are others in the field who merit a look, but all of them are a serious gamble, with very poor odds. Even a cursory look at Jeff Crank's supporters shows a preponderance of moderates: Ed Jones, Bob Gardner, and the entire El Paso county GOP left wing corps is the base for Crank, which tells you something about him.

Doug Lamborn, on the other hand, has been a certified, true-blue HERO in the state legislature since 1995. Almost no one can claim that -- heck, no one can.

Lamborn carried our Vermont-style concealed carry bill, a REAL Vermont carry bill, and in 2006 was the Senate sponsor of our Castle Doctrine or "No duty to retreat" bill.

When the pukes were sticking it to Colorado gun owners with their Baby Brady bill (in the session after Columbine), Lamborn was one of the very few to stand up and say no... and work against the bill. He's forced votes, worked with conservative groups, etc.

In fact, I couldn't even begin to list all of his deeds. But that's why Gun Owners of America PVF, and me personally, has endorsed Lamborn.

State Senate:

District 7
Dudley's pick: Josh Penry
RMGO's pick: No endorsement, but do NOT vote for Matt Smith

Though Josh Penry didn't earn our endorsement, Matt Smith has earned our anti-endorsement ten times over. Smith has openly attacked RMGO (because we held him accountable for the bad gun votes he cast as a State House member). Whatever you do, do NOT vote for Matt Smith.

District 13
Dudley's pick: Scott Renfroe
RMGO's pick: Scott Renfroe

This Weld County district may be the hottest primary in the State. Conservative newcomer Scott Renfroe, an RMGO member, is running against State Rep. Dale Hall. Renfroe surprised everyone -- except those who know him -- by top-lining Hall at the Convention. Hall's votes in the legislature have been terrible on guns, and just this year Hall was the main sponsor of a bill to give the federal BATFE -- the agency tasked with jailing gun owners -- more power! This race baffled some gun owners when the NRA endorsed Hall the same day they got a piece of mail from RMGO trashing Hall for his bad votes. If you live in this district, it's a no-brainer: Renfroe is the hands-down pro-gunner.

Click image above for full-size cartoon RMGO's PAC commissioned for this race

District 22
Dudley's pick: Mike Kopp
RMGO's pick: Mike Kopp

This southwest Metro area race pits newly appointed Senator and Pediatrician Kiki Traylor against 82nd Airborne Sgt. Mike Kopp. Though there's a third candidate, his single digit support hardly warrants comment.

Kopp is a rock-solid gun vote, while Traylor is untested on the issue. Given Traylor's occupation, her unwillingness to answer our candidate survey and her association with leftist Republicans, Mike Kopp is an easy choice. Support Kopp if you are able to vote in this district.

Click image above for full-size image of Kopp

District 30
Dudley's pick: Ted Harvey
RMGO's pick: Ted Harvey

From the first session in the Colorado House, Ted Harvey has had the guts to take on all comers for our gun rights. He's been a strong advocate for our issue, our organization, and our cause in general. His millionaire opponent seems more interested in catty personal attacks. Easy vote here: Move State Rep. Ted Harvey to the Senate.

State House:

District 14
Dudley's pick: Kent Lambert
RMGO's pick: Kent Lambert

Kent Lambert has been a staff member for the conservative wing of the legislature, the Republican Study Committee, and has been a good member of RMGO. He's a solid character who plays on the conservative (read: pro-gun) team, whereas his opponent isn't interested in working together. Easy pick: Lambert.

Click image above for picture of Lambert teaching his daughter how to shoot

These are all the races we feel comfortable giving you a good assessment of the race, much less endorsing a candidate. There are other primaries around the state, but RMGO hasn't taken a position on others.

Now get out and VOTE!

Musgrave passes amendment to ban enforcement of Trigger Lock provisions

June 29, 2006 -- Last night Colorado Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave passed an amendment to an appropriations bill that stops the federal government from implementing the trigger lock provisions of the gun lawsuits liability bill passed by the NRA last year.

Second Amendment Caucus co-chair
Marilyn Musgrave offers amendment
on the House floor to remove the
Trigger Lock requirements imposed by
the NRA's Gun Lawsuits Liability
bill of 2005.

The Musgrave Amendment (an amendment to the Science, State, Justice, and Commerce Appropriations bill) will allow no funds to be made available (to the Justice Department) to carry out section 924(p) of title 18. This section is the penalties section relating to the new trigger lock law that says that every handgun sold, must be sold with a trigger lock.

The penalty for manufacturers, importers and licensed dealers who fail to provide a trigger lock with a sale of a handgun is:

· Suspension for not more than 6 months, or revoke license.

· Fine of not more than $2,500.

The trigger lock provision was part of the Firearms Manufacturers Protection bill that was signed into law on Oct. 26, 2005. The trigger lock provision took effect on April 24th, 2006.

Musgrave's amendment garnered 230 aye votes and 191 noes.

You can view the vote at

Before the vote, it looked like the amendment might die because the NRA had not taken a position. When pressed by hill staffers, the NRA simply didn't take a position.

The NRA's reasoning for not getting involved was "our plate is just too full right now."

Full? Full doing WHAT? The reason the NRA didn't touch this -- they didn't even send an e-mail to members of Congress to ask for their vote on the amendment -- is because the NRA never wants to do anything they might not win, thus paralyzing themselves with fear. But if you ask a gun owner, more than anything else they want gun rights organizations to fight for their rights -- and fight hard.

This rationalization by the NRA is the very reason they have compromised so many times: capitol insiders predict "you can't possible win that issue", and so the NRA backs down.

Remember that early in 2005 the NRA claimed they would strip out these bad provisions after they passed the gun lawsuits liability bill in the Senate. Then, when the trigger lock provisions were added in the Senate, they claimed they HAD to pass this bill ASAP, and would strip the trigger lock provisions later. They put a full court press on Congress to pass a bill with trigger lock provisions, and dismissed them as meaningless.

Anyone who needs their firearm in a hurry, but has been fed the lie about trigger locks, won't call this capitulation on trigger locks meaningless.

This amendment was an attempt to undo what the NRA did in 2005 -- and it passed, despite the naysayers in the institutional gun lobby.

Now we need to get the same amendment attached to the appropriation in the Senate.

Bad news for Colorado Gun Owners

June 5, 2006 -- I just got a call from John Sternberg, the plaintiff in the suit against the city and county of Denver.

John has put a lifetime's worth of work into a suit to try to force Denver to follow the 2003 Preemption legislation passed by the Colorado General Assembly.

John said the Colorado Supreme Court just announced they split their decision on his appeal to the November 2004 Meyers decision. 3 justices wanted to overturn Meyers, while 3 wanted it to stand. A new justice could not vote on the case because she had been involved in it prior to her appointment.

That means the Nov. 2004 Meyers decision, which ruled that our state constitution's "Home Rule" provision allowed Denver to ignore some provisions of the preemption law, is now in effect.

Click here for the text of the decision.

You can read the November 2004 Meyers decision at:

You can read our Amicus brief on this case at:

John Sternberg promised us a short memo on what today's Colorado Supreme Court InDecision mean's to gun owners, and when we get that we'll forward it.

Sign Up for Emails

Get Yours TODAY!

Click here to see upcoming CCW Permit Classes offered by RMGO