Colorado Sen. Who Spearheaded Anti-Gun Laws Close to Recall

In the aftermath of the crime at a Colorado movie theater where 12 people were murdered, the Colorado State legislature quickly moved to adopt stricter gun laws and Senate President John Morse led that effort. But now, after his anti-gun bills were successfully passed into law, Morse faces a recall election that could turn him out of office.

On June 18, Colorado certified that the recall effort had gained enough signatures to move forward making Senator leader Morse the first legislator to ever be recalled in the state’s history.

Morse, a Democrat from Colorado Springs, has been in the legislature for seven years and for a short time was the police chief of Fountain, Colorado. He became Senate majority leader in 2009 after the former occupant of that office resigned to join the Obama administration.

Senator Morse not only supported but championed the new laws that limited ammunition magazines to 15 rounds or less and mandated that background checks be performed even for private transactions on gun sales. Morse also strongly supported several other, even stricter measures but they failed to pass.

Despite the complaints of constituents, the Senator is wholly unapologetic for his strong support of the new gun laws.

“Don’t stop, no matter what, because you’re right and the other people are wrong, and we’ve got to get this done,” Morse told CBS News.

But this stiff support for restricting citizen’s Second Amendment rights did not sit well with Laura Carno, the former banker and political consultant who, along with the El Paso Basic Freedom Defense Fund (BFDF), helped lead the recall effort.

Carno was not happy with her Senator’s refusal to listen to what she wanted done in the state capital.

“You need to listen to me, because you work for me. I got you hired and I can fire you,” Carno said.

Carno is responding to an appearance that Morse made on the Rachel Maddow show where he said that he and his fellow Senators just ignore the emails and messages from constituents urging them to vote down further anti-gun measures.

Carno and and the BFDF raised some $71,000 to fuel the petition drive for the recall effort and seem to have met their goal of 7,178 signatures having turned in more than 16,000.

Naturally the liberal groups are challenging the petitions, but if the petitions are all certified by the courts the recall election could be held only months from now.

The pro-gun forces have also gathered enough signatures to recall another state senator. 13,500 signatures to recall State Senator Angela Giron of Pueblo were also recently filed.

During her vote in favor of the gun bills, Senator Giron told Colorado media that she knew she was voting against the will of her constituents but that she didn’t care.

'Color Purple' Author's New Virulently Anti-Semitic Book Draws Criticism
IRS To Tax 'Virtual Currencies'
  • Hank_M

    Wow. Giron is quite the politician. From the linked article….

    “When the bills were brought up, Giron held two town hall meetings which she did not even attend in person.” ….After refusing to take questions about the bills at those two meetings…..

    Let me guess. Democrat?

    • Jill

      She is a Democrat that also wanted to get some of Bloomberg’s 27 Billion Dollars!

  • Atticus

    Morse… Take him down.
    Giron knew she was voting against the will of her constituents but that she didn’t care…. Well I bet you care now. Take her down..

  • LiberalNightmare

    But … but … but … This is a 90/10 issue!?!

  • jim_m

    I wonder how many years we can get for Mayor Bloomberg for illegally appropriating NYC servers to run his private political action groups including Mayors Against Illegal Guns?

  • Why should they listen to their constituents? They’ve been elected to office – that makes them the elite. The elite don’t listen to commoners – commoners are supposed to listen to THEM.

    Man, more and more I’m thinking that politicians who think the people can’t manage themselves shouldn’t be allowed in office.

    • jim_m

      I’m thinking that politicians who think the people can’t manage themselves shouldn’t be allowed in office.

      That’s not just the elected officials, it is the whole of the bureaucracy. The bureaucracy believes that the people need to be subdued and their lives managed and controlled.Those who believe that the bureaucracy should not act in this manner are fast becoming enemies of the state.

      • On reflection, you’re right. Bureaucracies exist to provide structure – and unless kept controlled, that structure will eventually become stifling.

  • Paul Hooson

    I support gun rights. However, I believe that recall campaigns are better used against those involved in wrongdoing in office, not against those politicians that you merely disagree with. Further, politicians can’t effectively govern if the fear of blackmail by recall threatens them. Recall elections need to be more narrowly focused at removing corrupt politicians from office, not just those who hold views different than we do.

    • jim_m

      They can govern effectively. What they need to do is communicate the reasons for their positions and sway their constituents to their side or at least to persuade them that they are not being unreasonable.

      There is no reason to have to tolerate an elected official who, once in office, turns against the interests of their constituents and legislates against their will. Misrepresenting your agenda in order to be elected is a form of corruption. I know that this is stock and trade for the left but there is no reason for the rest of us to have to put up with your crap.

    • LiberalNightmare

      If a politician has misrepresented his views to gain office, or his views have ‘evolved’ to the point that he no longer represents the people that elected him, recall is the only way to solve the problem.

    • As Jim said – “There is no reason to have to tolerate an elected official who, once in office, turns against the interests of their constituents and legislates against their will.”

      This is key. What evidence was there that it was the overwhelming will of his constituency that he pass gun control legislation? If anything, the ‘against’ really outnumbers the ‘for’ on it – but he was caught visibly saying he wasn’t going to pay attention to those who didn’t agree with him. HE knew what was best, never mind what reality was showing, or how his constituency would proclaim they didn’t want more gun control.

      • Paul Hooson

        This politician’s views are contrary to my own. I strongly support the entire Bill Of Rights including the Second Amendment. But, what I see is that a recall vote should be similar to an impeachment vote. Some level of crimes or ethics problems should be present to warrant a recall vote, not just an attempt to take down some politician because some group of voters don’t like his views on some pet issue.

        Look at the case of Governor Grey Davis in California. A group of voters took down this governor, not for any wrongdoing but because of $34 billion budget shortfall, and replaced him Arnold Schwarzenegger who left office after two terms with $25 billion shortfall over the next 18 months for the state. Schwarzenegger often attempted to cut this deficit through unpopular budget cuts, but the only difference is that there wasn’t some organized effort like that against Grey Davis to take him down from office.

        Some politicians aren’t great. But, on the other hand, recall votes should be more reserved for outright crooks in my view.

        • jim_m

          What you overlook is that if the voters put the incompetent and criminal into office in the first place, that they are just as likely to do so in a recall.

          Plus, if we put the bar at criminal malfeasance then why not just say that when the politician is convicted we will remove him from office? There is no real justification at all for a recall if we are going to draw the line at criminal action because we have a legal system that can remove the politician.

          Recall is for when the politician has lost the consent of the governed regardless of cause. Democracy rests on the legitimacy of the government and when the people no longer consent to be governed by their leaders those leaders must go in order for democracy to survive.

        • Jill

          To me Morse is an”outright crook” because he was pay off by Billionaire New York Mayor Bloomberg who is worth 27 Billion Dollars. Everyone knows that Bloomberg is behind this new push to take our guns away!

        • Not a problem – I think we agree more than we disagree that a politician that isn’t doing what they should ought to have (first) a fucking spotlight trained on them, with a proctologist ready to do a close examination on their ass when they start going “Oh, I don’t need to listen to the people! They’re a bunch of morons anyway, and need my beneficent guidance or they’d walk off a cliff or starve or something.”

          Then shove a recall down their throats if warranted.

    • ozcar

      Failure to adhere to his oath of office, which includes: ….uphold and defend the constitution….., IS WRONGDOING. You sir, either support our constitutionally recognized rights, or you don’t. Which is it?

    • Jill

      That is your opinion but the facts are we can use the recall when Morse puts laws in that attack the law abiding citizen. 90% of Colorado sheriffs are suing Morse stating these laws will only target law abiding citizens and not criminals. This is not a different view but Morse being paid by Billionaire New York Mayor Bloomberg! To me that is a “corrupt politician”.

  • Jill

    Senator Morse’s people are calling everyone that signed the petition and asking them to take their names off the petition. This means that they feel if the recall election is held Morse will lose. If they thought he would win they would be saying bring it on.I think they know they will lose so they are trying dishonest things to stop the recall.