Morse recall effort decidedly off target

Some gun-rights advocates were almost giddy with their announcement Monday they had gathered enough signatures to begin the recall process against Colorado Sen. President John Morse.

They were also a bit premature in declaring the recall effort a success, since the signatures they gathered still must be verified. And then there is that little matter of an actual recall election to determine whether Morse remains in office.

It’s clear there will be plenty of money from pro-gun groups such as the NRA to help in the effort to unseat Morse, if the recall election proceeds.

Democratic groups appear equally eager to make the fight over Morse a national referendum on gun control. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s group Mayors Against Illegal Guns and other national organizations are already raising money to campaign on Morse’s behalf.

All this for a battle over someone who can serve only one more year in the Legislature even if he is not recalled. Morse will be term-limited at the end of 2014.

But one important issue ignored by both sides in this dispute is whether recall is an appropriate remedy for the wrongs that Morse’s critics think he has committed. We don’t believe it is.

The Daily Sentinel’s position has long been that recall is a tool designed to remove from office those elected officials who have committed malfeasance or gross neglect of their duties while in office. It is not something that should be used to reverse election outcomes or to punish elected officials for political disagreements.

Elections have consequences, and the 2012 election in Colorado gave Democrats a majority in both houses of the state Legislature, and therefore the votes they needed to pass much of the gun legislation they sought.

That said, we certainly disagreed with Morse and his fellow Democrats regarding some gun legislation this year. In particular, we think a bill introduced by Morse, which would have held gun makers and gun sellers legally liable for any crimes committed by guns they distributed, was patently unconstitutional. Fortunately, Morse could not muster enough votes to push it.

The two big gun measures approved by the Legislature — requiring background checks for all gun sales in the state and banning ammunition magazines of larger than 15 rounds — will have little impact on gun violence and are of debatable constitutionality.

A group of 52 county sheriffs in Colorado, including Mesa County Sheriff Stan Hilkey, believes the new laws are unconstitutional and has filed a lawsuit to get them overturned. The group is also seeking an injunction to prevent the laws from being enforced until their constitutionality is determined by the courts.

That legal action is entirely appropriate. Each of the county sheriffs have sworn oaths to uphold the constitutions of the United States and of this state. If they believe new laws are unconstitutional, they have an obligation to obtain a judicial ruling regarding the laws’ status.

Taking the issue to court demonstrates more fidelity to our judicial system than refusing to enforce the laws in question, as some sheriffs were threatening to do earlier this year.

The question of the constitutionality of the new Colorado laws will no doubt be raised during the recall campaign against Morse, if the secretary of state’s office verifies enough signatures to force a recall election. Some of his opponents will likely accuse Morse of violating his oath of office by supporting gun-control measures.

But it’s clear that Morse hasn’t committed any crime, and he is guilty of neither malfeasance nor serious neglect. Rather, he is being attacked because his political views on guns are much different than those of his opponents.

So, get ready for the gunfight at the Colorado Corral. The rhetorical bullets are sure to start flying.


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
Page 1 of 1

I am wondering whether telling the Democratic State Senate Caucus not to listen to their constituents; not to answer their e-mails; to cancel their town halls would rise to the definition of Malfeasance. One wonders if the blatant lies about the signature collectors put forth by Morse and his minions would rise to the level of slander?

It is popular to use the phrase elections have consequences, well votes have consequences as well, and Morse allowed the Colorado Senate, a voice for the Colorado people to be run by Bloomberg, Biden and Obama.

Kudos to the Daily Sentinel for its timely editorial criticizing the misguided partisan recall effort targeting Democratic Colorado Senate President John Morse (“Morse recall effort is decidedly off target”, June 5, 2013) for supporting Colorado’s reasonable and newly enacted “gun laws”.

While “[a] well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”, our Supreme Court held in Heller that “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited” – i.e., can be “infringed” (e.g., by “prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual’ weapons”).

Ultimately, the constitutional issues implicated by Colorado’s modest new statutes will be resolved by the privately funded lawsuit challenging them – and in which the County Sheriffs’ are participating.

As the Sentinel aptly opined, because the County Sheriffs are law enforcement officers sworn to uphold our state and federal constitutions, they are entitled to an unambiguous determination of “what the law is”—and will be indisputably bound thereby.

However, as the Sentinel less aptly opined, the constitutionality of Colorado’s new “gun laws” is hardly “debatable”.  Because the Second Amendment is entirely silent as to the government’s authority to regulate the design, manufacture, and/or sale of “arms” in interstate commerce (nor limits its power to tax them under Article I, Section 8), merely   limiting the size of legal ammunition magazines poses no real constitutional question.

Likewise, while the Second Amendment guarantees (at least most) citizens the right to “keep and bear (at least some) arms” (at least for self-defense), nothing therein constrains governmental power to “regulate” how such “arms” are acquired.  Therefore, “universal” background checks for most gun sales (to prevent criminals, terrorists, and the demented from legally obtaining firearms) are also likely constitutional.

Meanwhile, hopefully, “the gunfight at the Colorado Corral” will occur only in our courts.

Page 1 of 1

Search More Jobs

734 S. Seventh St.
Grand Junction, CO 81501
970-242-5050; M-F 8:00 - 5:00
Subscribe to print edition
Advertiser Tearsheet

© 2015 Grand Junction Media, Inc.
By using this site you agree to the Visitor Agreement and the Privacy Policy