It would seem that’s what the subtitle quote should be for this article:

Udall wouldn’t kill gun ban but hopes court will

That’s so unflattering for a title. I mean that’s spelling out for constituents that he doesn’t want to be on the record voting on an issue and hopes other people will make other decisions for him. That’s not usually what Congressmen are elected to do. So let’s see if the rest of the article fits.

When the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments last week about the Washington, D.C., ban on handgun ownership, U.S. Rep. Mark Udall of Colorado issued a news release saying he hoped the court would affirm the right of citizens to “keep and bear arms.”

But on four occasions when Udall, a Democrat running for an open U.S. Senate seat, could have voted in Congress to repeal all or sections of the gun ban, he did not.

Not once, not twice, not three times, but four times he refused to take a vote that would leave a record. Of course, upholding an individual right and upholding a right that has meaning (aka no DC ban) are two different talking points. So let’s see how he digs…

Udall campaign spokesman Taylor West said the congressman did not support the 32-year-old ban but also didn’t think Congress was justified in overriding the district while the issue was before the courts.

“He believes in self-rule and the rights of local government,” West said. “The people should be able to set their own laws.”

Well, Udall should believe in the Constitution. DC is ruled by Congress. Congress can overrule the City Council. It would stand to reason that someone who believes that rights mean something would say, “You know City Council, I generally defer to you. But tonight, you want to deny people their rights. That’s a problem when it’s spelled out in the Constitution, so I’m going to overrule you in the morning.”

If that line of logic is too hard for Udall to understand, then the Post found someone who got it:

Udall’s GOP opponent, Bob Schaffer, quickly seized upon the statement, turning it into a campaign issue. Colorado voters have historically supported gun-ownership rights, said Dick Wadhams, Schaffer’s campaign manager. …

Wadhams added that it was “entirely appropriate” for Udall to intervene in the matter because Congress has the final say on the district’s laws and budgets.

But now, now, is the Post being fair? I mean they also note that Udall did issue another press release back before the case went to the SCOTUS.

Udall has said he supported last year’s D.C. Court of Appeals decision — which was appealed to the Supreme Court — that found the ban violated the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms. …
The congressman “believes the court strengthened and clarified the reach of the Second Amendment,” West said.

Three years ago, Udall voted against an amendment that would have prohibited funds from being used to enforce the district’s law requiring some firearms to be unloaded and disassembled.

In 2004, he voted against a bill that essentially would have repealed the ban because “law-abiding citizens of D.C. are deprived by local laws of handguns, rifles and shotguns.”

And in 1999, he declined to back two amendments: one that would have repealed the district’s law and another that permitted “law-abiding residents” in the district to keep a registered handgun in their home.

Don’t call him anti-gun!  Just call him lazy.

No obviously related posts.