Ken Buck attack research

[Chairman's Committee]

I am sure that many of you have heard the recent attacks made against Ken Buck.  Although I am a little pro gun biased I feel that Ken Buck perhaps did the right thing.  Here is some links to the background of the story and then you can determine if Jane Norton is being honest about her representation.   Thanks Lisa for the research put into this.

 

 http://bit.ly/dwEwJ9

And here is the TV show:
http://video.cpt12.org/video/1531526752

 

 

If you would like to add additiona comments and research links please post them in this thread.

[John Richardson]

From Dudley Brown, Executive Director of the National Association for Gun Rights:

What do Jane Norton & Sarah Brady have in common?

Simple: they both want Gun Owners in jail!

Jane Norton claims to be pro-gun.

And though we've been skeptical of Jane Norton -- especially considering she was recruited by one of the leading anti-gun Senators in the U.S. Senate -- we decided to give her the benefit of the doubt.

She even joined her opponent, Ken Buck, in filling out the National Association for Gun Rights 2010 Federal Candidate Survey 100% pro-gun.

But right now, Jane Norton is acting more like radical gun-banner Sarah Brady.

In her radio and TV advertisements, Jane Norton is vocally advocating for the legal persecution of law-abiding gun owners – against an active member of Colorado's largest gun rights group, Rocky Mountain Gun Owners (RMGO).

To prop up her faltering campaign, Jane Norton’s operatives have been pushing the liberal media to talk about the malicious prosecution of a gun owner in a positive light.

Norton is trying to curry favor with the media elite and the anti-gun Establishment types, since it plays on their anti-gun sentiments.

Really, she's just using the anti-gun hysteria of those who hate freedom to attack her opponent.

It's desperate, for certain.

It's also flat-out wrong.

Norton is trying to demonize gun store owner Greg Golyansky -- a long-time member of RMGO. Unlike many politicians, he’s got a history of standing for freedom.

Golyansky and his family moved from behind the Iron Curtain to America because of freedom, something they didn’t have in their homeland. He went through legal channels, moved to Colorado and started a business. I know Greg personally, and I can tell you that he’s someone who’s very excited about freedom and our country’s founding principles.

That’s who Jane Norton is vilifying -- a Colorado gun owner -- in an attempt to tar her opponent.

As Paul Harvey used to say, here’s the rest of the story.

A decade ago the BATFE (federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) used a sting operation against Greg Golyansky, attempting to jail him for mere paperwork violations of their byzantine regulations.

To his credit, then Assistant U.S. Attorney Ken Buck – now Jane Norton’s U.S. Senate primary opponent – refused to prosecute Golyansky. Simply put, the evidence wasn’t there.

But Ken Buck's boss -- former Democrat U.S. Senate candidate Tom Strickland -- tried to force Buck into prosecuting Golyansky, despite the lack of evidence.

Why did Tom Strickland try to force Buck to prosecute this so-called gun crime?

Simply put, Tom Strickland is a raving anti-gun extremist. He wanted to empower the BATFE to go on witch hunts against gun owners across our country via a program called Project Exile (we call it Project Gestapo, since it uses outrageous anti-gun rhetoric and promotes "turning in your neighbors for illegal guns.")

I should know about this case: Greg called me when it happened.

I told Greg Golyansky that this is what happens when there's a combination of rabid, anti-gun politicians in charge of "administering the law" and a tide of gun control is sweeping our state, as it was in the wake of the Columbine tragedy.

Fast forward to the 2010 elections.

Jane Norton, behind in the polls, is now using this non-issue against Ken Buck.

Frankly, this makes me furious.

I know politicians are not to be trusted, but when they answer a written survey and sign their signature attesting to it, I expect them to live up to their word.

But it only took a few weeks for Jane Norton to break her written promise.

You see, in the NAGR 2010 Candidate Survey we ask candidates if they would support legislation to reduce the power of the BATFE.

Jane Norton answered yes -- and now attacks her opponent because he resisted the overreaching grasp of the BATFE!

This has made us question Jane Norton's entire survey.

And since she was recruited by one of America's leading anti-gun Senators, who has routinely worked to close down the private sale of firearms in America and enact gun controls on numerous levels of the federal government...

... we have no choice but to question all of her answers to our survey.

Put simply, gun owners cannot trust Jane Norton in the U.S. Senate.

As a gun owner, and someone concerned with our Second Amendment freedoms, we encourage you to cast a vote against Jane Norton for U.S. Senate.

For liberty,


Dudley Brown
PAC Director
National Association for Gun Rights PAC


P.S. Jane Norton -- like radical anti-gunner Sarah Brady -- is embracing BATFE’s malicious persecution of gun owners, and cannot be trusted with our firearms freedoms in the U.S. Senate.

We encourage you not to vote for Jane Norton in the August 10th Republican primary.

[Chairman's Committee]

Thanks John

From what I have researched and from what Greg has told me the pursuit of the legal actions against him were exactly that, A witch hunt.