It is a given among Colorado politicians that most residents support the right to own guns.
Would someone mind telling Tom Tancredo?
Tancredo, after toying with the idea of running for governor, now has proposed a non-binding ballot measure for 2010 that, if approved, would basically tell our top elected officials that Coloradans oppose significant gun restrictions. The measure is meant to take aim at Sen. Michael Bennet, who was appointed to his office this year and is up for election in 2010.
We think the proposal from the former GOP congressman is little more than an opportunistic use of the ballot process, meant to stoke anxiety among those who fear their guns might be taken away from them, animate the conservative base and get out the vote in 2010. So far, the Second Amendment has hardly been imperiled by the Obama administration or Michael Bennet.
In fact, there’s actually been an expansion of rights under on Obama’s watch.
This year, Congress, with Bennet’s approval, expanded the ability of concealed-carry permit holders to take their weapons into national parks.
Further, Bennet also supported a failed amendment to expand the rights of concealed-carry permit holders to use their permits across state lines. In both the national parks and the state-lines issues, Colorado Sen. Mark Udall also voted in ways acceptable to the National Rifle Association. And Udall has proposed legislation to expand shooting ranges.
Tancredo says he is concerned by the Obama administration’s willingness to take part in United Nations negotiations to develop an international arms-trade treaty meant to stop irresponsible trafficking of weapons.
Tancredo’s ballot measure would ask Colorado’s lawmakers to oppose international treaties or agreements that restrict gun ownership within the United States. It would also ask Colorado’s senators to specifically oppose the U.N. treaty.
The language of such a treaty is years from completion, and U.N. passage of the measure faces so many obstacles it might never see reality.
Even if such a treaty were to be recognized, it seeks to regulate international trade, not gun sales here at home. And the United States can veto language considered contrary to our interests, and should.
Meanwhile, courts routinely limit government restrictions on gun ownership. Yet Tancredo says the arms-trade treaty constitutes “a pretty slippery step to gun confiscation.”
Confiscation? That kind of hyperbole seems like a pretty slippery step away from a reasonable argument.
Tancredo tells us he wants to put Bennet and the rest of Colorado’s Washington lawmakers on the record regarding gun restrictions. He says doing so is necessary because some key members of Obama’s administration are philosophically inclined to restrict gun ownership.
Fair enough. But so far we’ve seen an Obama administration uninterested in limiting gun rights, and Colorado’s senators have proven themselves to be reliable supporters of gun ownership.
Finally, there are simpler ways to get our lawmakers on the record than by putting a measure on the ballot.
