Independence Institute’s “Pro-Gun” Dave Kopel Sells Out Gun Owners

Share This!

Never one to let a tragedy not be used in their war against gun owners, California Colorado Democrats this week passed so-called “Red Flag” legislation that makes it illegal for law-abiding citizens who haven’t been charged with a crime to carry a firearm if they are a victim of hearsay.

Which now means if a Colorado Democrat feels like you shouldn’t be able to own a gun and they tell a judge that, you lose your Constitutional rights without even so much as a trial.

Despite the action from a half-dozen groups, thousands of activists and tons of noise, the Democrats found themselves able to whip enough members to pass the bill by a single vote.

So where was “pro-gun” Dave Kopel from the Independence Institute during this important fight on “Red Flag” laws?

Kopel was testifying… IN SUPPORT OF RED FLAG LAWS… in front of the US CONGRESS!


If that wasn’t bad enough, he even went on to praise the actions of anti-gun states like Illinois, California, and Maryland:

“Conclusion – Federal funding can encourage states to adopt confiscation laws that safeguard public safety and respect civil rights. Federal funding should reward adoption of best practices, many of which have already been enacted in some states.”

– Dave Kopel’s written testimony to Congress

Of course, we should come to expect this from Colorado Democrats, and Dave Kopel “pro-gun” lawyer is a Colorado Democrat – as confirmed by his party registration in Boulder County.

The truth is, having your senior researcher on the gun issue be a sell-out Democrat is not a good look for the Independence Institute. As a result, Jon Caldera and Amy Oliver are risking the future of their organization by supporting such characters.

For all the goodwill I’ve had for the Independence Institute in defending TABOR, they’ve hurt themselves by selling out Colorado gun-owners and liberty activists.

Even if Dave Kopel was shown the curb, the damage is done and the real losers are gun owners who put their faith in the Independence Institute to stand beside them but instead had their donations go to their ideological enemies.

Weeks after the ides of March, gun owners are still getting stabbed in the back by their “friends.”

11 thoughts on “Independence Institute’s “Pro-Gun” Dave Kopel Sells Out Gun Owners

  1. And is a benefactor member of the NRA. NRA supports gun control in that they believe the 2A does not apply to each person equally that certain people’s rights supersedes the rights of others. The cowboy at NRA openly states you gotta be listed in his “asset column” to have guns though I have never read that in 2A but it does state that the right is “inalienable”. Legislating guns is ultimately a gun grabbers agenda. Defending the right as “inalienable” is the pro American position. Oddly enough even the most aggressive gun rights advocates think they have the right to dictate who can and who can’t have guns. People have done a wonderful job of drinking the governments Koolaid and turning each criminal event into a gun issue as if guns jump up and shoot people on their own without assistance from human hands. Even pro gun groups and activists blame the gun for crime totally loosing sight of the real offender. They want the government to protect them so they are fast to hand over the freedom of others and now it’s time for them to hand their freedom over and they’re angry about it because in their minds they are special though in my opinion they are just standard hypocrites. There’s a new criminal in Colorado, those who have been supporting gun control and now refuse to comply with it. Keep drinking the Koolaid you fake patriot gun grabbers your rights are not exclusive over the rights of others.

  2. When they disarm all of the Criminals, and our Correctional Institutions are empty, and no one is Robbed, Raped or Beaten by an unwanted or illegal intruder… Then and only then can the gov’t have my guns…because that is when Jesus the Christ will have returned and I won’t have further need of them. Until then, grandma says, “NO DICE”.

    1. “And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever.”
      Thomas Jefferson

  3. Doesn’t Independence Institute claim they’re pro-gun? How could they be, with this scumbag?

    It was John Caldara who proposed a compromise on the Magazine Ban, yet couldn’t even get it introduced. Now I’m understanding why.

  4. Wondering if the author of.this hit piece attempted to reach out to Kopel, Caldera, or Oliver for comment.

    1. Too bad that Kopel totally bypasses the “inalienable” language in 2A. Subversion of the Constitution has destroyed our country.

      1. Have them verify why a concealed carry permit and Boulders gun registration is lawful when it can be used as evidence against a person for gun confiscation. Last I checked we have the right to not provide evidence against ourselves. Have RMGO clarify that please.

      2. I’m still waiting over here shall I stop holding my breath George?
        Legislating rights away is the opposite of protecting them George.
        Where did you run off to so quickly George?

  5. This article is dishonest. Who wrote it?
    Kopel appeared to testify in Denver before the House and Senate. He wrote a number of essays for Complete Colorado, the online magazine, criticizing the bill point by point.
    Kopel had started an effort to get all sides together under the auspices of the uniform state law commission, to see if they could come up with a suggested red flag bill that would satisfy the concerns of all reasonable parties on this issue. But he was told to forget it – Colorado had decided to go with something like what just got passed.
    It would be useful to have a red flag bill that complies with due process. Allowing hearsay evidence at the final hearing is one problem. Another is allowing persons who know the gun owner to file the legal proceedings. This just asks for abuse, by those holding grudges.
    The law should require a police investigation first, and let law enforcement be the proper party to initiate proceedings if their investigation shows a need for action. And the accused should have the right to confront the witnesses against him, at the final hearing.
    But if somebody shows intent to do another massacre, shouldn’t there be a legal process to deal with it, before the shooting starts? Don’t you know of somebody whose possession of firearms scares you?
    Ex parte (only one side taking part) proceedings are used in a number of cases, such as those where child welfare is involved. As long as the accused gets his full day in court later, that’s okay. And anyone who promoted it in bad faith should be punished, including having to pay the attorney fees incurred by the accused and by the government.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *