The Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance has released its candidate grades.
When reading this, remember – “F*”, with the asterisk, means “didn’t return the questionnaire”. While most Republicans (and a huge proportion of DFLers outside the metro) scored well, plenty of Republicans in tough DFL districts who would be solid on the Second Amendment very likely let the questionnaire slide; you gotta pick your battles. Don’t be put off by all the F* grades, anyway.
But most importantly, remember – the Second Amendment is a guarantee of a human and civil right. I’d vote for an anti-gun candidate no more than I would a pro-censorship one.
Either should you.
“Don’t be put off by all the F* grades, anyway.”
Between the ones not answering the questionnaire and the ones with the with the outright “F” grades the numbers come out to about 42% House and 35% Senate candidates. I’m not at all pleased with that. And of the whole lot you get but 2 with A+ ratings, the stalwarts Tony Cornish and Tom Hackbarth.
Scott,
I’m not as concerned with the F* – I know a number of them are good on the issue in real life. The straight Fs? Well, we can deal with them at the polls.
And I know they don’t give out a lot of A+ grades; it’s pretty much reserved for the people who are the supreme Second Amendment leaders…
When the candidates received over a dozen email reminders, and had more than a month to complete the questionnaire? That’s not a “let it slide” issue. It’s a deliberate statement that they don’t value Second Amendment rights.
And you just let them off the hook: that’s a huge mistake. If they support gun rights, they will say so, publicly. If they don’t say so, it is a very good guess that they do not support those rights.
Just because a candidate has an “R” next to his name doesn’t mean he supports individual rights. We’ve done these candidate questionnaires for a long time. That F* means just what it looks like: a bad bet.
Andrew,
You get to be an absolutist on the issue, naturally; you lead the group.
I know a number of candidates, personally, with F* ratings that I know would support the 2nd Amendment if they got into the Legislature. It’s a fact.
Would we both have preferred they answer the questionnaire and speak out in public? Absolutely. Do they have their reasons for not responding? Maybe. Are they good enough? I don’t think so either, and I’ll have a word with a few of ’em when I get a chance. Is an abstain good for GOCRA? Nope. Is it a tactical necessity in some of their districts? Arguable; it’s a rational conclusion, but on the other hand their odds are long enough as it is.
Before a pro-gunner can affect legislation, s/he has to get elected and in some districts, admitting you’re pro-gun will give anti’s an opening to scream about cop killer bullets. I’m a Life Member but if I were running in St. Paul, I wouldn’t advertise the fact and that’s not shame, it’s a respectable tactical decision. More important is what does the person’s life say about their attitude? Own a pistol? Ever been hunting? Donated money for or against? Judge that, not the election campaign strategy.
Yeah, disregard my comment and run with Nate’s.
While I”ve not been party to any discussions in any of the “F*” campaigns in Saint Paul, I’d suspect the decision was more tactical that ideological. In some districts – SD33? – one could probably win while carrying openly. In others – SD65 and 66 – it’s just another negative.
And that’s unfortunate – I’m on your side, remember! – but true.