Mediaboss Marketing

Strategists and politicians on the left and right agree: The race to represent Colorados Republican-leaning 3rd Congressional District got a lot more interesting at the end of June, when gun-rights activist and first-time candidate Lauren Boebert toppled five-term incumbent Scott Tipton in the GOP primary.

Boebert, owner of the attention-grabbing Shooters Grill in Rifle where the waitresses are armed will face former state Rep. Diane Mitsch Bush, the Steamboat Democrat who also served on the Routt County Commission and was seeking a rematch with the more traditionally conservative Tipton, who beat her by 8 percentage points in the last election.

In an observation echoing national election forecasters, a number of seasoned politicos with roots in the sprawling district told Colorado Politics that Mitsch Bushs chances of moving the seat into the Democratic column are better than they would have been had the less flamboyant Tipton had won the nomination, but itll still be a tough lift among the 3rd CDs largely rural and smaller-town voters.

The rest of the state might be trending blue, but the Eastern Plains and Western Slope arent as likely to follow the Front Range and more liberal mountain towns, former state GOP chairman and statewide campaign veteran Dick Wadhams said.

Political consultant Greg Brophy, a former Republican state senator from Wray, the other side of the state, echoed Wadhams, saying that no matter how blue the state trends overall, the Western Slope is still a broad swath of red.

But Alan Salazar, who hails from Grand Junction and is chief of staff to Denver Mayor Michael Hancock, said it would be a mistake to count electoral chickens in 2020.

Its a right-of-center district but not a crazy ideological one, he said. I feel like this is the year where Trump is so unpopular in Colorado, its a very good year to be a Democrat in the state, no matter where.

A note of optimism

State Rep. Dylan Roberts, D-Eagle, who occupies the House District 26 seat Mitsch Bush held before she resigned to run against Tipton last time, sounded a note of optimism for his fellow Democrat.

Absolutely its a district a Democrat can win. A lot of things need to come together for that to happen, and we might be seeing those things happening this year. Youve got an open seat with no incumbent, a national trend going against the Republican Party, and a pretty inexperienced candidate running on the Republican side, he said.

Roberts, who organized most of the Western Slope for the President Barack Obamas 2012 re-election campaign, acknowledged its a hurdle.

The reality of the district is, its such a gigantic and diverse district, where the numbers have been trending more conservative going against the statewide move toward the Democrats. Its still hard for a Democrat but its possible.

It will be difficult for both candidates to put themselves in front of voters, particularly with the pandemic restricting the kind of face-to-face campaigning that works in a district with so many distinct communities, the experts said.

Both nominees run the risk of allowing their opponent to paint them as too extreme to represent a seat that has a habit of sending more middle-of-the-road politicians to Congress, including Tipton and John Salazar, the Democrat he unseated, rancher and former state lawmaker, and Republican Scott McInnis and then-Democrat Ben Campbell before him.

Tyler Sandberg, an executive at the education-reform group Ready Colorado and the campaign manager for former U.S. Rep. Mike Coffman, who lost his suburban 6th Congressional District seat in an anti-Trump wave in the last election, said polling hes seen suggests Republicans could be in more peril than theyre acknowledging.

The Trump factor

The presidents support among his party, Sandberg said, has been dropping from the rock-solid 95% level Trump enjoyed until recently into the low 80s. Trump is bleeding out in swing-state polls around the country, he said, adding that if similarly largely rural states like Missouri are in play, he must be bleeding out pretty badly.

Wadhams said if the bottom drops out, Republicans from U.S. Sen Cory Gardner on down will face a blowout in November.

Colorado voters have been notorious about ticket splitting, but I dont think thats a dynamic thats going to be much in play in 2020, said Alan Salazar. Trump is such a polarizing figure. My gut sense is people are looking for a return to calm, order, a process we can trust to get away from some of this craziness.

Boeberts flirtations with the right-wing conspiracy movement QAnon could pose a risk for her, if dissatisfaction with Trump and the GOP brand runs as deep as some Republicans fear, Wadhams said.

Former state Sen. Josh Penry, a native son and a state political strategist, said the pox on both your houses frustration among voters could play both ways, though, noting that Mitsch Bush might be from the Western Slope but lives in a resort community.

If John Salazar is the nominee? This is an absolute dogfight, Penry said. But a liberal politician from a resort town talking about turning the district blue, I think theyve got an imperfect messenger for this district.

The pent-up frustration in rural America, which helped lift Trump to a 12-peercentage point win in the district four years ago, he added, hasnt gone away.

Alan Salazar said itll come down to which candidate voters believe represents Western Slope values and interests and which provides a level of comfort.

Scott Tipton wouldve been somebody a lot of people could have voted for, but Im not sure about Ms. Boebert, he said.

This district is very diverse, Roberts said. There are communities in the mountains where tourism and the environment and conservation are the top issues, then you head into Grand Junction, the San Luis Valley, where agriculture and energy are the biggest topics. You need somebody who can speak to all those different issues and have their finger on a variety of pulses.

Mitsch Bush, he said, has deep experience on all those issues and laid down a record as a county commissioner and in the legislature.

I have confidence that Diane, when she goes to different communities, can speak well and is very informed on the particular issues that matter to those communities, he said, adding, I havent seen Lauren Boebert speak about any issue but the Second Amendment and freedom, quote unquote.

However the race shapes up, Sandberg said, the Democrats get a win. TV time in the district which covers all four of Colorados markets, including the expensive Denver market will be pricey.

Republicans will have to spend a million or two to defend the seat that they wouldnt have spent if the nominee had been Tipton, Sandberg speculated.

If you wanted to have a knock-down-drag-out in CD3, it could get pretty expensive, pretty quick, he said. Will the Democrats spend money to put that one seat into play? Will the Republican super PACs spend money to keep it?

Continue reading here:
THE RACE FOR CD3 | This got a lot more interesting, observers say - coloradopolitics.com

During President Donald Trump's nationwide address on Monday evening, he announced his intent to use all federal resources to help stop the rioting and looting that's taking place across the country. He also mentioned that he would protect the rights of law-abiding citizens, including the right to keep and bear arms. Naturally, progressives and those who hate the Second Amendment were up in arms over the mention of the Second Amendment.

Apparently encouraging people to protect themselves when cops are attempting to stop rioters is encouraging "racist supporters" to "start shooting black protestors."

They also seem to think that if you support the Second Amendment that you should automatically take to the streets to over martial law.

Here's what these folks fail to understand: the Second Amendment is there to protect our freedoms, including our First Amendment rights, but it's also there for self-defense. Relying on cops to protect you when they're trying to keep rioters from looting and literally burning down cities, it's up to you to protect yourself, your family and your property. Even when there aren't massive riots taking place across the country, it can take cops minutes, sometimes even hours,to arrive to a person's call for help (depending on where they live and how well-staffed their police and/or sheriff's department is).

Progressives can make the assumption that Trump is telling people to go out and shoot protestors and looters. That is notwhat he said. He's simply saying that people's Second Amendment rights will not be taken away, that people will have the ability to protect themselves and their families should someone try to cause them harm.

Remember: there are still rules and responsibilities that come with owning and carrying a firearm. Pretty much every gun owner will say the same thing: they never want to have to utilize their firearm but they have it should the need arise. Defending life is when a firearm should be utilized. It should and always will take priority over a person's property.

Guns, however, have been proven to be a deterrent that keeps people from breaking into buildings and stealing. Just look at what happened when all hell broke loose and "armed rednecks" stepped up to protect various businesses.

See the original post here:
Trump's Mere Mention of the Second Amendment Sent ...

Update: Sources confirm that the "Open Carry" rally has been cancelled after a request from the Traverse City Police Chief. A protest over George Floyd's killing will still be held in Traverse City Saturday.

Randy Bishop, a radio host in Cheboygan, has called for an Open Carry rally in Traverse City this weekend amid planned protests over the killing of George Floyd.

As of Thursday night, one protest over Floyds death was planned for 12-2 p.m. at the Open Space in Traverse City on Saturday.

Bishop says the Michigan Militia, a paramilitary group with right-wing ties, and the Proud Boys, a right wing group that came to prominence at the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia in 2017, will hold their rally in Traverse City Saturday as well. He says they plan to be peaceful and that firearms will be holstered.

They have first amendment rights to peacefully assemble, to freedom of speech, Bishop said of those protesting George Floyds death.

But if it comes to the point where certain bad actors are going to step up and co-opt a peaceful protest? he added. The guys with the second amendment rights will be there and we will step up and we will react.

Rumors have been circulating over social media for days that protests this weekend could be disrupted by people from outside northern Michigan and counter-protesters, although IPR could not find any evidence to substantiate them. On Thursday, Traverse City Police Chief Jeff OBrien said his department has investigated several of those claims, and did reach out to individuals that had made threatening posts online.

We found no credible threats of any type of disruption thats gonna happen in Traverse City. Theres been some chatter on Facebook about individuals coming up here and assisting the police, he said Thursday prior to Bishops announcement. Weve reached out to them and told them we dont need any assistance.

OBrien did not say specifically who his office has communicated with, but asked that any attendees of protests this weekend not bring weapons.

Bishop says he initially wasnt planning on attending any protests this weekend, but changed his mind after seeing a flyer allegedly passed out to business owners in downtown Traverse City.

The flyer, a picture of which was posted to social media, called for peaceful protests and urged shop owners to put signs in their windows declaring that theyre minority-owned or white allies to prevent rioting or looting from violent protesters.

I know there is concern of vandalism, rioting and looting. I want to prevent this from happening in any way that I can! the flyer reads. For this reason, if your business is MINORITY-OWNED, please put signs in your windows stating this!

Organizers in Traverse City say the flyer was passed out by a group that was planning a peaceful protest, and was intended to prevent damage and looting to Traverse City stores. But Bishop insists the flyer was passed out by bad actors, saying it could be from the Black Lives Matter movement or ANTIFA, a left-wing, anti-fascist political movement. IPR found no evidence to support that claim.

Bishop has been involved with Second Amendment protests and resolutions passed by several northern Michigan counties, including Grand Traverse.

Prior to Thursday, protestors and law enforcement officials called for peaceful demonstrations in town. Protests throughout the week in Traverse City, Petoskey and Gaylord have been peaceful, according to attendees and media reports.

Traverse City Police Chief Jeff OBrien held two impromptu press conferences this week, one with Traverse Citys Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem and City Manager, to dispel online rumors and urge for peaceful protests. He said he understands the frustration over Floyds death.

I speak for everybody in law enforcement: we do not condone the actions of law enforcement officers in Minneapolis," O'Brien said.

On Tuesday Mayor Jim Carruthers also echoed calls for protests in Traverse City to remain peaceful.

"We welcome people here, we just want people to be safe and to share their opinions and not do damage to our city," Carruthers said.

A peaceful protest was scheduled earlier this week in Cadillac, but it was cancelled due to threats, according to an organizer.

It has become apparent that our collective vision for a peaceful demonstration has been undermined. We have received a number of credible threats from outside sources to hijack our community event and diminish our movement and our message, the events organizer told attendees on Facebook.

A clerk at the Cadillac Office of Public Safety said the protest was simply rescheduled, but could not name a time or place.

Go here to see the original:
Second amendment advocates plan rally in Traverse City amid protests over killing of George Floyd - Interlochen

A woman holds up a sign in support of the 2nd Amendment around the Virginia State Capitol grounds in Richmond, Va., January 20, 2020. (Jonathan Drake/Reuters)Even a cursory examination of American history shows that gun rights are not racist.

Pulitzer Prizewinning writer Nikole Hannah-Jones had some thoughts on the Second Amendment yesterday:

Its not really a head scratcher to comprehend why Americans want to protect their property and lives from looters and the mob. Why a reporter can breezily fabricate history under the banner of one of the nations most-widely read newspapers, on the other hand, definitely qualifies.

Theres no historical evidence to suggest that the Second Amendment was created to ensure Southern slaveowners the right to maintain & arm slave patrols to put down insurrections amongst the enslaved, even if southerners subsequently used guns for their nefarious purposes. As Charles Cooke has noted, That neo-Nazis are protected by the First Amendment does not indict the First Amendment, just as that criminals are protected by the Fifth does not call that bulwark into general question.

The right to self-defense, in fact, is incompatible with the idea of slavery it runs counter to the arguments made by the Founders, even if some of them were hypocrites; counter to the arguments made by many abolitionists and the early civil-rights leaders; and counter to the arguments made by Second Amendment advocates today.

The animating ideas of the Second Amendment both as personal and communal protection are predicated on natural rights and English common law. And while nearly every intellectual, political, and military leader of the Founding generation stressed the importance of the right to bear arms as a means of preserving liberty, some of its most vociferous champions were against slavery.

In his 1770 defense of Captain Thomas Preston, one of the British soldiers responsible for the Boston Massacre, John Adams who often defended freed slaves and held the practice of slavery in such abhorrence argued that even the unwanted and intrusive British soldier had the inherent right to arm and defend himself from a mob. Here every private person is authorized to arm himself, and on the strength of this authority, he said. It was the primary canon in the law of nature, he argued, quoting William Blackstone, whose writings helped define the English common-law legal system.

Those interested in fact-based history of the philosophical foundations of the Second Amendment can read Joyce Lee Malcolms classic study on the topic: To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right. In it, Malcolm makes the case that colonists were men and women steeped in English laws, English customs, English prejudices, and English habits of mind. It was within this tradition that colonists staked their claim to revolt when the king came for their weapons.

The 70 or so American militiamen who fought 700 British soldiers in Concord and Lexington among them Prince Estabrook, a black militiaman wounded in the battle (a soon-to-be freed slave) werent anxious about slave revolts. They were intent on stopping the British from stripping them of the ability to defend themselves.

Sam Adams, one of Massachusetts leading revolutionaries and agitators, argued in 1769 that the the subjects of England are entitled first to the regular administration and free course of justice in the courts of law next to the right of petitioning the King and parliament for redress of grievances and lastly, to the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence.

Adams opposed slavery.

Even abolitionist religious leaders such as Simeon Howard and Jonathan Parsons for while we plead for liberty on one hand, and promote slavery on the other, our principles are too contracted and corrupt, Parsons said defended the ideas that gird the Second Amendment. [F]or if one man may defend himself and his rights against an assailant, much more may a whole country defend themselves when their rights are invaded, Parsons preached.

The first American effort to codify and guarantee the right to bear arms was made in Pennsylvania, under a conference run by Benjamin Franklin, also president of the colonys antislaverysociety. The second colony to do so was Vermont, where there were few slaves and no fear of a revolt. When New Hampshire suggested language for the future Bill of Rights Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion the future state probably had less than a hundred slaves.

After the ratification of the Constitution, five states (Rhode Island and New Hampshire among them) demanded a Bill of Rights be adopted by Congress, and every one of them asked that the individual right to bear arms be mentioned.

As I argue in my book First Freedom, of all the rights organized in American life, none had a longer and more defined history in English common law and tradition than the right to self-defense not freedom of speech, or press, or religion.

Whats most misleading about Hannah-Joness distortion of the Second Amendment, however, is that the first gun-control laws were all racist in intent, meant to keep newly freed black Americans subjugated. Black Codes instituted after the Civil War made owning guns illegal for most blacks, and continued to put them at the mercy of racist governments. Arguments made during the debate over the 14th Amendment often specifically mentioned the right to bear arms.

Whats most ironic about Jones, who names herself after 19th-century civil-rights leader Ida B. Wells, is that the historic figure was a champion of the Second Amendment. She maintained that an important lesson of postCivil War America, one that every Afro American should ponder well, was that a Winchester rifle should have a place of honor in every black home, and it should be used for that protection which the law refuses to give.

The Second Amendment certainly wasnt a head scratcher for the real Ida B. Wells.

Read this article:
The 1619 Distortion of the Second Amendment - National Review

"Never is the Second Amendment more important than during public unrest," a National Rifle Association video claimed in March. Rhetoric about owning, wielding and using guns has grown especially heated in recent weeks. In response to protests against police brutality, President Donald Trump tweeted, "when the looting starts, the shooting starts,"echoing a Miami police chief from the 1960s and an NRA article published after the Los Angeles riots in 1992. "You loot we shoot," wrote Marion Hammer, the organization's first female president. Meanwhile, armed protests of state health measures, such as those that shut down the Michigan Legislature last month, seem rooted in an ideology promoted by the modern NRA: that only firearms in civilian hands can safeguard the nation from government overreach. Here are five myths about the group's mission and history some told by critics, others told by the NRA itself.

Myth No. 1: The early NRA was involved with the Ku Klux Klan.

Michael Moore, in his 2002 documentary "Bowling for Columbine," insinuated that the NRA and the KKK were linked, because they were formed six years apart. The New Republic drew a similar connection in a 2013 article on the history of gun control. In a recent review of my book (which reported no ties between the organizations), the New York Times wrote that the NRA "came to the rescue of Southern members of the K.K.K.," before issuing a correction.

Documents from the era, including an exhaustive tome by NRA co-founder William Conant Church, show that this isn't true. The early NRA, founded at the peak of Reconstruction in 1871, never went much farther than its shooting range outside Manhattan, and played no role in the South during Reconstruction or for years thereafter. Church and other early NRA leaders, nearly all of whom were veteran Union officers, unequivocally supported President Ulysses S. Grant's efforts to crush the Klan.

But, contrary to claims by NRA board director Allen West, who has said that the group "stood with freed slaves to make sure they had their Second Amendment rights," the organization didn't play a major role in opposing white supremacists, either. The NRA was so provincial at the time that, in 1877, Church had to remind the board that New York City and its environs "are only a part of the great rifle movement in America."

Myth No. 2: The NRA originated as a champion of gun rights.

The group calls itself "America's longest-standing civil rights organization," a claim constantly repeated by its leaders and lawyers, and by media outlets including NPR.

But the NRA did not raise gun rights at all over the first half-century of its existence. It focused instead on improving marksmanship in anticipation of future wars. In 1922, an editorial in the NRA's first official journal flagged gun rights as an area of concern for the first time, citing both a 1911 New York law and Russia's recent outlawing of civilian ownership of guns. The Second Amendment came up only as the Cold War set in: The NRA first asserted what it called "the Second Article of the Bill of Rights," along with the "the right of the people to keep and bear arms," in a 1952 American Rifleman editorial.

Go inside New York politics.

By clicking Sign up, you agree to our privacy policy.

In 1977, the NRA finally embraced gun rights as its "unyielding" aim, in the words of its leader Harlon B. Carter. At that year's national convention, Carter, a former Border Patrol chief, led the "Cincinnati Revolt," an internal rebellion that transformed the NRA into the nation's largest gun rights organization.

Myth No. 3: Armed Black Panthers led the NRA to support gun control.

"When Black Folks Armed Themselves The NRA And Republicans Suddenly Supported Gun Control," read a headline on NewsOne. "Back in the 1960s, even the NRA supported gun control" when it came to disarming the Black Panthers, says the History Channel. Indeed, in 1967, mere months after a group of Black Panthers entered the California State Capitol with long guns and holstered sidearms, Gov. Ronald Reagan signed a law banning the open carry of firearms. The NRA helped write that legislation and monitored its passage in American Rifleman without comment; race no doubt influenced the bill.

But this event was not a turning point for the NRA. By the 1960s, it had disavowed the "private armies" of white supremacists that arose during the civil rights era, and it broadly supported greater regulation of firearms, such as those tied to recent political assassinations. "The NRA does not advocate an 'ostrich' attitude toward firearms legislation," said its chief executive, Franklin L. Orth, three weeks before the Black Panthers protested at the California capitol. "We recognize that the dynamism and complexities of modern society create new problems which demand new solutions." The following year, the NRA supported a federal law banning, among other things, mail-order guns, adding to a 1934 NRA-backed law sharply restricting "machine guns."

Myth No. 4: The NRA is just an extension of the gun industry.

People often declare that the group is a mere "front for gun makers," as one HuffPost article put it. It's true that the NRA was born at the gun industry's hip: All seven editions of the "Manual for Rifle Practice," by co-founder George Wood Wingate, were packed with firearms ads. Today, large donations from gun manufacturers make up a substantial portion of the NRA's revenue, as membership dues have declined.

But the NRA has still operated relatively autonomously over the past 149 years. In 1937, its leadership even labeled a new, powerful Magnum revolver by Smith & Wesson a " 'freak' class of weapon" that should be restricted to police.

More important, the modern NRA is a political force in its own right, commanding outsize influence that can't fully be explained by the deep pockets of the companies that fund it. Since 1977, when the group started to back the notion that civilians are entitled to nearly the same level of firepower as police, it has helped to roll back federal gun laws it once supported and to block almost all new federal regulations, whileworking to expand concealed-carry laws in most states.

Though money is important to its operations, "the real source of its power, I believe, comes from voters," law professor Adam Winkler told the Guardian. In recent elections, especially primary contests, the NRA has mobilized voters at every level, attacking opponents and rewarding "pro-gun" candidates. That electoral following helped Chief Executive Wayne LaPierre persuade President Trump last summer to reverse himself on expanding background checks.

Myth No. 5: The NRA isn't threatened by its current troubles.

The NRA is in turmoil. A 2019 tax investigation by the New York attorney general prompted a billing dispute between the group and the advertising firm Ackerman McQueen, its chief vendor and longtime communications partner. What ensued was a crossfire of charges of financial improprieties, pitching LaPierre against the group's president, Oliver North, who eventually stepped down. Its top lobbyist was forced out. Several board members resigned. Still, members insist that the organization's leadership remains strong. "It's going to take a big revolt to get them out of power," John Crump, an NRA member and firearms instructor, told the Chicago Tribune. The NRA has endured "these sorts of internal discussions, debates, and changes without losing a step,"board director J. Kenneth Blackwell said in the Washington Times.

The NRA also faces significant financial issues. Already in debt from the more than $30 million it spent on Trump and other candidates in 2016, its recent legal troubles have cost an additional $100 million, according to secret recordings obtained by NPR this year. "To survive," LaPierre said, he took the group "down to the studs," laying off dozens of people and cutting the pay of others. Meanwhile, the New York authorities continue to investigate whether the NRA illegally diverted funds from its tax-exempt foundation, threatening the organization's nonprofit status. This combination of internal and external pressures presents LaPierre with the biggest crisis of his career and the NRA as a whole with its worst crisis since the Cincinnati Revolt.

Smyth is an award-winning investigative journalist and the author of "The NRA: The Unauthorized History." This piece was written for The Washington Post.

More:
Five myths about the National Rifle Association - Newsday