Last week, The Colorado Independent spotlighted Dave Kopel’s response to Dudley Brown, the director of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, who’s been claiming Kopel is a weak supporter of the Second Amendment, specifically a sleeper cell for former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Here’s the take-away quote from Kopel, who works for the conservative Independence Institute, in which he calls out Brown for lying to Congress:

Kopel: That’s why [Brown] is lying right now in Congress against the NRA’s National Right to Carry bill, which would mean that you as a Colorado resident with you carry permit, you could carry in Washington D.C., Los Angeles, and New York city.  [Kopel sent me this as the source for his statement.]

Kopel concluded his comments with this:

Kopel: So, there are two possible views of reality. One is Dudley is a liar, a huckster, and a hoax who is preying off people and taking their money, not for gun rights but to support himself.  The other possibility is that Dudley’s telling the truth and that I am a sleeper cell for Michael Bloomberg.  You can decide which one is more plausible.

Here are Kopel’s full comments, as delivered on Channel 12’s Colorado Inside Out April 17:

Lynn [Bartels] nailed it at the end. It’s a “Fundraising  for Dudley” problem if the magazine ban is 99 percent repealed – to change it from 15 to 30 [rounds].

Dudley and his group have been around in Colorado as lobbyists since the late-90s. And yet, they have never passed a single bill. He’s also got his national group – so-called National Association for Gun Rights—which has never passed a single bill in Congress. An impressive record of futility, but only if you think of his group in the same way you’d think of real gun-rights groups like Gun Owners of America, or the National Rifle Association, or the Firearms Coalition of Colorado.

As Dudley explained to a meeting of friendly, recently-elected legislators a few weeks after the election, he said, ‘Don’t work with people like Kopel, because then when they pass something, it makes it harder for us to raise money.’  Dudley’s shtick is to keep people upset and angry and giving him money, and never to solve any problem.  So, that’s why, for example in 2003, he opposed the Conceal Carry Act, which was passed and signed by Governor Bill Owens, supported by the National Rifle Association, by the Firearms Coalition of Colorado, and by the county sheriffs of Colorado.  It is not a perfect bill, but it was huge improvement from what existed before, and it has been very positive in how it has helped many, many tens of thousands of gun owners exercise their right to bear arms.

But Dudley always opposes something that could actually pass and help gun owners.  That’s why he’s lying right now in Congress against the NRA’s National Right to Carry bill, which would mean that you as a Colorado resident with you carry permit, you could carry in Washington D.C., Los Angeles, and New York city.  It’s why he lies about everyone in the ‘real’ gun rights movement.  It’s why he says that Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation is the national leader for national gun registration. It’s why he says I am Bloomberg cell – a sleeper cell.

So, there are two possible views of reality. One is Dudley is a liar, a huckster, and a hoax who is preying off people and taking their money, not for gun rights but to support himself. The other possibility is that Dudley’s telling the truth and that I am a sleeper cell for Michael Bloomberg. You can decide which one is more plausible.

CORRECTION: An early version of this article incorrectly attributed this sentence to Kopel: “It’s either the huckster or homeland – one of the two.  At least it gives us something to look forward to, here.”

Before she interviewed Dudley Brown, who spontaneously called her show this morning, KHOW 760-AM’s Mandy Connell told her listeners she had no opinion about Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, which Brown directs.

After the interview, Connell, an arch conservative, said she had an opinion–and I’m guessing you will too if you listen below.

In this case, Brown talked as if he has more of a right to interfere in gun legislation at the state Capitol than the Independence Institute has because RMGO bought and paid for the state GOP Senate majority.  And he went on about it, implying he’d organize primaries against five Republicans who voted against a violation of state Senate rules yesterday.

Connell started the conversation, which was first reported by Complete Colorado, with a question about why RMGO was opposed to raising the limit on magazine capacity from 15 to 30 rounds.

Then she asked, “So, why take out Dave Kopel?  Why go after him?”

Brown: Well, look, I don’t want to go into personalities on a public format. Dave Kopel is a wonderful writer. On strategy, he’s horrid! Dave Kopel is actually a Democrat. He has always advocated for compromise at every single turn. Every time we’ve ever had a gun bill in Colorado, he’s always advocated for compromise. And in fact, Dave Kopel is the one who fixed the Democrats mag ban so it did not include shotguns. He showed Senator Mary Hodge how to do it, mechanically. Probably being the one who enabled it to pass. Now, I have no qualms about being honest. But in politics, I don’t want it to be about personality. I want it to be about principle and strategy.

But, in all honesty, we simply don’t agree with Dave Kopel and never have, and for that matter, the Independence Institute, none of whom got these legislators into office.

It’s our organization and our PAC that spent the money to elect the legislature and take the Senate from the Democrats. We were the biggest funders of Republican candidates in the last election. Far bigger than the NRA. And let me be clear, I don’t know if this is – you could ask them, but my understanding is even the NRA opposes this compromise. Now, if the NRA opposes a compromise because it’s too squishy on the gun issue, that pretty much means that it’s as far left as it can be because the NRA usually buys into every compromise. In this case, my understanding is that they opposed it, too. Look there aren’t the votes to pass a 31 round ban –the repeal of the 30 ban, to make it 31. But there aren’t the votes for repeal, unless the Republicans take the House and the Governor’s mansion, neither of which are assured…

Now, to those people who say, “Wait a minute!  I want to be able to buy my 30 round magazine!”  I say, “Shut your pie hole and go buy one!”  There are many retailers who sell them right now.  They ignore the law, and God Bless them for doing so. And in many cases, your District Attorney and your sheriff won’t be involved in any cases against you, anyway…

Connell said, “You’re saying, ‘Go break the law.’”

Brown: I’m saying, “Do what you want.” But, the fact is, the ban, really — it’s like jaywalking. There really is no ban, right now. It’s largely a ban on some of the businesses who manufacture and didn’t want to be here, anyway.

“Now, wait a minute, Dudley, here’s the thing,” replied Connell.  “You just said earlier you don’t want to make this about personalities, but the Facebook post by Rocky Mountain Gun Owners says, “Does Bloomberg have a sleeper cell in Colorado?  All of a sudden, Dave Kopel is fighting as hard as he can to save the magazine ban.  Maybe it’s because he’s a lifelong registered Democrat and a Ralph Nader voter.”   So, that hardly sounds like you’re arguing the issue.  It sounds like a personal attack.”

Brown: Well, that actually, we didn’t start this.

Connell: “We didn’t start it” is not a mature response.

Brown: We didn’t start the battle, Mandy!  But I can guarantee you, we’re ending it….

Connell: You know, Dudley,  I’ve got to take a break.  But, one thing I will say about Jon Caldara is he is no man’s puppet…So, you are saying you don’t want to make this personal, and yet you keep making personal attacks.  I just want to point that out.

Brown: That’s because, frankly, we were ambushed in a dark alley…From our perspective, this is a principled strategy.  Yesterday morning, if you followed what happened in the House, we forced a recorded vote on the entire House floor on the full mag ban repeal, Senate Bill 175.  Kim Ransom and Justin Everett and a number of others forced the recorded vote. And they had the chance. The Democrats had the chance to break ranks and vote with us. And they didn’t, of course. And five Republicans voted wrong.  And all five of those Republicans are suspect, and in danger in the next primary…

Connell: I appreciate the phone call.  [hang up with Brown]  I now have an opinion about Rocky Mountain Gun Owners.

Who wouldn’t?

In response to the March 18 attack on a pregnant women in Longmont, state Senate Republicans have introduced legislation expanding the definition of “person” in specific state laws, including Colorado’s murder statute, to include an “unborn child at every stage of gestation from conception until live birth.”

If that sounds like personhood to you, giving legal rights to zygotes (fertilized eggs), that’s because it is a form of personhood. It establishes the fetus as a person, opening the door to possible bans on abortion and the arrest of pregnant women for crimes (e.g., child abuse) against their own fetus. And that’s what concerns Senate Democrats, who are opposing the legislation and saying Republicans are taking advantage of the horrific crime against Michelle Wilkins to pass personhood legislation.

“I am disappointed that the Republicans are choosing to use what happened to the Wilkins family to get ‘personhood’ into law,” said state Sen. Pat Steadman (D-Denver) in a statement after the GOP bill was introduced Tuesday afternoon.

Steadman, along with pro-choice advocates, point out that Colorado’s 2013 law, the “Crimes Against Pregnant Women” act, allows for severe penalties for crimes like the one Wilkins endured, while protecting abortion rights and preventing prosecutors from arresting pregnant women, for example, for abuse of her own fetus–which has been done even in states with laws specifically prohibiting prosecutors from doing this.

“What occurred in Longmont was horrible, and the perpetrator deserves to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, which if found guilty could result in a sentence of over 100 years in prison,” said Steadman. “Using this tragedy to promote new laws that Colorado voters have soundly rejected is out of bounds.”

Reporters should be clear that the bill introduced yesterday and sponsored by state senate Bill Cadman and 14 other Republicans, is a variation of personhood legislation, even though it excludes from prosecution acts “committed by the mother of her unborn child,” “a medical procedure” performed by medical professionals or doctors, or the “administration” of legal medicine.

This vague language, like “medical procedure” puts abortion rights in jeopardy–particularly because “abortion” is not mentioned at all in the text of Cadman’s bill.

In contrast, similar laws, like a one in Kentucky, very explicitly exclude the performance of an “abortion” from possible persecution. Kentucky’s law states that prosecution would not be allowed for “any abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman has been obtained or for which the consent is implied by law in a medical emergency.”

So I don’t understand why some personhood activists, like Jennifer Mason, say the language in Cadman’s bill affirms abortion. It’s too vague to do this.

“We are urging a reconsideration of this bill – it can be written to ensure justice for victims like Heather Surovik and Michelle Wilkins, without going out of its way to protect abortion,” said Mason. “The overt inclusion and protection of abortion is not only wrong, it’s extremely inappropriate considering the tragic circumstances that call for fetal homicide laws in Colorado.”

Even when abortion is specifically excluded, pro-choice advocates say laws like Cadman’s, ironically, tread on the rights of pregnant women.

“Our research shows that in the current U.S. political environment, there is no way to put one of these laws in place without it becoming a tool for controlling and punishing pregnant women themselves,” said Lynn Paltrow, director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women.

If you’re looking for 1) horrible analogies and 2) a way to lose an argument about whether it’s ok to discriminate against gays, here’s a model for you, from KLZ AM-560’s  “Rush to Reason” April 8, guest hosted by David Leach:

David Leach, the “Strident Conservative:” You’re an evil person if you’re a Christian, and you don’t want to bake a cake for a homosexual marriage. But, if you’re the CEO of Apple, it’s totally cool to sell your products to Saudi Arabia, where they will murder you if you are a gay. Give me a break! What’s the deal with this? I mean, where’s the media outrage?

Producer Zach: You know, murderers need music too. You can’t discriminate against them. They need their IPods.

David Leach: In fact, maybe we should make a music video. They are throwing the gays off of the building, while we play Tom Petty’s “Free Falling.” That would totally work. I’m sorry, we’re kind of making fun, and some of you probably just got mad at me for saying what I just sad. But that’s too bad. That’s just the way things are. I can’t stand hypocrisy… If I’m in Saudi Arabia and you come into my business and say, ‘Yeah, I would like a cake for my homosexual wedding.’ I’m going to shout Allahu Akbar and cut your head off.”

Listen to David Leach on KLZ 560-AM’s Rush to Reason

Eric Teetsel, Director of the Manhattan Declaration, a right-wing Christian organization, was a guest on the same segment, but wasn’t asked about the Saudi Arabia analogy.

The Colorado Independent called Rep. Mike Coffman’s office numerous times over numerous days to find out if Coffman had kept $20,000 in donations from Rep. Aaron Schock, who resigned in disgrace after it became apparent that he was brazenly misspending tax money.

Coffman’s office never called reporter John Tomasic back, but Coffman spokesman Tyler Sandberg did talk to The Denver Post’s Lynn Bartels, telling her, “We donated the money after Aaron Schock resigned and donated it to a veterans organization.”

Sandberg also told Bartels:

“As a matter of principle we don’t respond to fake news websites, nor did we feel a need to trumpet the donation. Sorry to upset the left-wing attack machine so desperate to find a flaw with Mike Coffman.”

The Colorado Independent is not a fake news site. It’s a progressive news site. So, I guess Sandberg is saying he won’t talk to people who might disagree with him?

I wondered which veterans organization received the cash and when it was donated, so I called Sandberg. And, lo, he didn’t return my calls either. So it appears his bogus “principle” applies to me, too.

That is, unless I do something he likes.

Last August, after Denver Post reporter Jon Murray and Sandberg drew my attention to an error in one of my blog posts, I corrected the piece, drawing praise from Sandberg:

“Kudos to @BigMediaBlog for acknowledging and correcting his error,” Sandberg tweeted.

So, he responded to me!

I’m still hoping Sandberg takes two minutes to tell me which veterans group got Schock’s money from Coffman and when the donation was made. Not a big deal, you’d think, for someone whose salary is paid by us.

In a KNUS 710-AM radio interview yesterday, Colorado Senate President Bill Cadman said he’s “really hoping” to get a fetal homicide bill introduced “by the end of the week.”

KNUS radio host Dan Caplis, who’s a deep-red social conservative, urged Cadman to push for a law like California’s, which establishes a fetus as a potential victim of a crime.

Cadman replied that the California law is “definitely one of the models that we’re looking at.”

Pro-choice advocates, however, say the California law undermines civil rights protections of pregnant women, allowing for criminal investigations of pregnant women based on the legal rights of the fetus. They say any fetal homicide measure is unnecessary, as Colorado’s Crimes Against Pregnant Women Act is the gold standard insofar as it mandates severe penalties for perpetrators of crimes like the Longmont attack, while protecting abortion rights and the civil rights of pregnant women.

The Longmont attacker faces charges that could result in a 100-year prison term.

And if history is our guide, it’s unlikely that the anti-choice members of Cadman’s Republican caucus will go along with anything short of the California model.

In 2011, bipartisan support for a bill allowing for criminal prosecution for reckless crimes against pregnant women unraveled after attacks by anti-choice activists.

They were angry about language in the bill specifically stating that the legislation did “not confer the status of ‘person’ upon a human embryo, fetus, or unborn child at any stage of development prior to live birth.”

The Republican sponsor of the 2011 bill, Rep. Mark Waller, pulled his own legislation in frustration over the dispute about whether anti-personhood should be part of the language of the bill, telling journalists in 2011, “The right to life folks bring up a valid point when they said that this is a criminal justice provision. Why does this language need to be in there?”

Anti-choice forces in 2011 insisted on legislation modeled on California’s fetal homicide law, as they appear to be doing this year. As the Colorado Independent reported at the time:

Father Bill Carmody said he had met with Waller for close to an hour to express his concerns about the bill and had advocated for California style fetal homicide legislation.  He said he was concerned that though abortion had been decriminalized since 1967, the bill’s removal of the criminal statute would take Colorado back a step “if and when the Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade.”

“The other problem is that other than in the title, there is no mention of the word child in the bill. It goes out of its way to say it is not a person. It goes out of its way to say it is not anything human, so bring manslaughter charges if it is not human.”

When Democrats got control of the state legislature 2013, they passed a law similar to the failed 2011 legislation.

Last year, Colorado Democrats passed another law allowing civil penalties to be filed against perpetrators of crimes against pregnant women.

Talk-radio shows can hit their stride when they latch onto a cause and fight for justice–or something that looks like justice to the target audience.

Hence, in recent years, you’ve had KNUS’ Dan Caplis fighting the insulting Tim Tebow trade. You’ve seen KHOW’s Peter Boyles standing strong  for Jon Benet Ramsey (a million shows and counting…). You’ve got Jeff Crank exposing the slithery tactics of the Hotaling brothers, who are notorious GOP operatives.

Now KLZ 560-AM’s Randy Corporon is ramping up his dogged campaign to get newly elected Senator Cory Gardner to appear on his radio show. Not only does he have conservative icon Bill Kristol on his side in principle, he now has a Facebook page with the simple name, “Why Won’t US Sen Cory Gardner Come on Wake Up With Randy Corporon?”

It’s got 159 likes (including one from me) and this attractive artwork:

Creating yet another gaping hole at Denver’s leading news outlet, Alicia Caldwell ended a twelve-year run at The Denver Post Tuesday, when she left the newspaper for a job as communications director for the Colorado Department of Human Services. Caldwell started in 2003 as a news reporter and joined The Post’s editorial board in 2006. Prior to joining The Post, she spent 16 years at the St. Petersburg Times in Florida.

Before her departure from The Post last week, Caldwell answered a few questions via email about journalism,The Post, and her new job.

Why are you leaving The Post?

Caldwell: The opportunity to become communications director for the state Department of Human Services was too good to pass up. Many of us get into journalism because we are drawn to important issues and care about the condition of society at large. This job gives me a more direct way of contributing on both those counts. The work CDHS does is really difficult, yet the agency is making headway on a number of fronts. I’m not sure there is a broad appreciation of that progress.

Do you agree with me that as journalism shrinks, opinion-writing jobs at newspapers, like yours at The Post, are even more endangered than jobs on the news side? If you agree, what will be lost in a place like Colorado, as jobs like yours disappear? If you disagree, please explain why.

Caldwell: I both agree and disagree with your premise. Yes, I think that the loss of voices on the opinion page diminishes breadth and depth of debate on issues of public importance. Love us or hate us, well-researched opinions on the topics of the day, especially the complex ones, bring value to the public sphere. Where I might part ways with your supposition is that opinion positions are more endangered than those on the news side. The newspaper has been cutting everywhere, unfortunately, due to shrinking revenues. It makes me profoundly sad, I will tell you, to see the diminution of the staff and the coverage we’re able to provide readers.

Diminished resources aside, what are your biggest concerns about how journalism is practiced today in Colorado? What do you admire most?

Caldwell: Well, I think all of my concerns are directly tied to diminished resources and the many effects that has on how journalism is practiced. As budgets grow thinner, it’s not just that journalists are losing their jobs, it’s that the business can no longer afford to pay for experienced hands who generally produce the most sophisticated stories. It also means the more subtle stories that might take time and research fall to the bottom of the priority list. Journalism will survive, but I worry that at regional newspapers, it will turn into a low-wage profession. And hey, I understand the need to balance the books, the need for revenues to cover expenses, but I do think that changing financial landscape will inevitably change the nature of the workforce and the product. As for admiration, I very much admire those who are carrying on despite all of these challenges because they have passion for their work and respect for the mission.

What would you say to a young person considering journalism as a career?

Caldwell: Keep your eyes open going in and don’t expect it to go back to the way it was even 10 years ago.

What do you think you’ll miss most when you leave The Post?

Caldwell: Being on the editorial board has been a profound honor. I have appreciated every day the freedom I’ve had to write on a broad range of topics. Working with Vincent Carroll, the editorial page editor at The Post, has been a pleasure. Vincent is a true professional who is always willing to consider opinions that differ from his own. I have to tell you, I think America would be less politically polarized if more people would sit down and rationally discuss the merits of an issue with people who they might not initially agree with. That piece of common ground that many of us long for is actually bigger than one might think.

Thanks, Alicia.

NOTE: See other “exit interviews” with Denver journalists here.

Tea-Party activists in Colorado are feeling good about themselves after booting GOP state Chair Ryan Call, and their momentum could spell trouble (as in, P-R-I-M-A-R-Y) for newly elected Sen. Cory Gardner–as well as fellow Republican Rep. Mike Coffman.

Before last month’s election, which put the Tea Party in control of the state GOP, you might have ignored threats about primaries–about ousting Gardner or Coffman. But now, reporters and others should pay attention to these folks on conservative radio shows.

“I want to plant this seed in everyone’s mind,” said former state GOP vice chair Mark Baisley on KLZ radio March 19. “Now, the priority has become the principle. The priority has become liberty; it has become founding princicples. It has become the party platform, which I’ve been preaching for years. That’s become the priority over the people in office.

“Be ready to hold [to] account,” continued Baisley, who’s aligned with the insurgent liberty wing of the Colorado Republican Party, even though he lost his vice-race last month. “And be ready to throw out people like Cory Gardner, people like Mike Coffman, who are not toeing the line. Hold folks to account and let them know, ‘Hey, we’re in a mood. And hop on, or you’re not as important as the movement; you’re not as important as founding principles.'”

“Boy, you’ve been dying to be in a position where you could just make that last statement, haven’t you.” KLZ host Randy Corporon told Baisley, “because you couldn’t say those things as vice-chairman of the Colorado State Republican Party.”

“Yeah, it would not have been appropriate,” replied Baisley. (Listen to Mark Baisley here, beginning at 2:15)

“Yeah, so, power to you, man!” replied Corporon, who’s the founder of the Arapahoe Country Tea Party. “God bless you for saying so and being honest.  Because, absolutely, you know, Mike Coffman is my Congressman.  Primaries – there is such talk about primaries right now, because we can’t have people who continue to allow the big government agenda to go forward.  I don’t care how strong you are on the VA. I don’t care how likeable and charismatic you are on CNN, and that you have good hair.  If you don’t stand up for the Constitution, if you don’t push back with everything you’ve got at every opportunity against this advancing progressive agenda, then I’m done with you.”

Corporon and Baisley are upset about Republican votes on immigration and budget issues. And Gardner’s refusal to appear on Corporon’s radio show, Wake Up, is having a salt-on-the-wound effect.

Corporon’s dogged campaign to get newly elected Senator Cory Gardner to appear on his radio show got a boost from an icon of the conservative right, Bill Kristol, the editor of the Weekly Standard, who told Corporon March 19  that, in principle, he believes Gardner should appear on Corporon’s early morning show on KLZ 560-AM.

“Don’t you think that these elected officials are obligated to talk to everyone who has supported them and who they were elected to represent?” Corporon asked Kristol.

“Especially Republican and conservative-oriented politicians,” Kristol replied, “foolishly think that conservative radio hosts [and] magazine editors somehow are going to be on the team. And they get really annoyed if you occasionally say what you think. I’ve criticized people for not making compromises when I thought it was prudent to do so. And I’ve certainly criticized politicians at times for compromising too much and too early and not standing up for principle. And at times, they want you to pay a price. So they’ll give the interview that they think is so valuable to someone else. They won’t cooperate with one of our writers writing a profile. It’s part of the business, honestly. I think the good politicians get beyond that. In fact, I’d say politicians get a lot of credit, including pretty liberal Republican Senators who are very open, who will talk to everyone in their state, who don’t duck tough interviews. And then I go to some states and I hear about a certain Senator I think Rob Portly of Ohio is a good example, probably a little more moderate than the Tea-Party guys would want. He answers the questions. He takes the interviews, does the town halls. And people feel, you know, at least he listens to us, he’s respectful, and we differ on some things. I don’t want to say anything on Cory Gardner because I don’t know the details, obviously, but in general I think it’s a good idea to be open, especially, as you say, to people who have supported you and answer to criticism and perhaps push you back on the right path.” (Listen to Bill Kristol here.)

But what’s the right path, and does it lead to a primary battle? Those are questions Gardner, Coffman, Baisley, Corporon, and uppity Tea Partiers in Colorado will be working out for a long time, I have the feeling.

Now that one State Representative, Justin Everett, is arguing that Rep. Gordon Klingenschmitt should not be punished for comments he’s made outside of the legislature, reporters should track down Klingenschmitt’s endorsers from his campaign last year and find out what they think of their embattled friend.

Their words of praise for Dr. Chaps, as Klingenschmitt calls himself, can be found on his campaign website:

“Gordon Klingenschmitt has demonstrated to me strength of character and resolve to maximize our individual liberties.  He is definitely a warrior who will fight the constant intrusion of government which constantly erodes our freedoms.  “Thank You,” Gordon for your willingness to represent us.”  — Fmr. Colorado Senator Dave Schultheis

“I like Gordon Klingenschmitt!  His Academy and military experiences have nurtured a mental toughness to stand and fight for conservative principles when others don’t.  We need that in the Colorado General Assembly.”  — Colorado Senator Kent Lambert

“Gordon Klingenschmitt is a proven leader who has the principles and values we need in the Colorado legislature.” — Colorado Senator Kevin Lundberg

“Today, we are living in a climate of moral and financial confusion.  Gordon Klingenschmitt will help direct the State back to principled conscience and economic prosperity.” — Colorado Senator Vicki Marble