Former Florida Congressman and Republican David Jolly thinks he can be governor of his home state. This is a guy who is stupid enough to think an insurance mandate will somehow make people safer, mind you, but he thinks that the state that loves Gov. Ron DeSantis is somehow going to vote blue.
If he runs, though, gun rights advocates can hold him accountable for his past betrayals.
See, Jolly wasn't always down on guns. When he first ran for office, he ran as pro-gun, which is why his flip while still in office is considered a betrayal.
Now, folks in the Sunshine State can hold him to task for his past sins.
As for town halls, when? Where? Because Florida has plenty of gun owners who say they believe in the Second Amendment, and those open forums provide perfect opportunities to take a play out of the Democrat playbook, albeit they just disrupt. More ordered points could be made by calling the guy out over how he betrayed everyone who had previously supported him based on his past endorsement by the National Rifle Association.
“The NRA mobilized our members and pro-gun voters in this congressional district. Thanks to our members who voted early and turned out yesterday to vote, their efforts made a significant difference and helped win the day for the only candidate in this race who supported their right to Bear Arms, their hunting heritage and their right to self-defense.”
He’d have never gotten elected otherwise. So, what lies did he tell them to get an “AQ” (based on questionnaire) rating? Bizarrely, presuming he’s a calculated liar gives him more credence than presuming he’s a moron who didn’t comprehend what he was signing up for. So, why not ask him what he told NRA to get them to mobilize their members on his behalf? Why not get him to release the questionnaire he submitted, and we can see what he promised?
We already have a pretty good idea. Conservative Alaska U.S. Senate candidate Joe Miller shared his “perfect” questionnaire with me, back when NRA was sidelining him in favor of establishment pick Lisa Murkowski. Among the things Jolly would have had to freely say he agreed with:
- He opposed legislation banning semi-automatic firearms and their ammunition and magazines.
- He supported right-to-carry.
- He opposed legislation ending private sales.
- He agreed a judge’s record and belief in the Second Amendment as an individual right should be “important factors” for confirmation votes.
- He opposed “sporting purposes” requirements.
- He agreed that the Second Amendment is a fundamental individual right applicable to state and local governments as well as to the federal government.
Understand that 2014 was the year for both the above-cited Miller and Jolly campaigns, so it’s reasonable to assume the questions were the same.
That's more than reasonable. I'd say it would be illogical to think they were different in any way, shape, or form.
Jolly ran as a Republican in a state that has adopted the unofficial moniker of The Gunshine State, so he gave all the necessary answers to get the nod from the National Rifle Association. This was at a time when that nod was pretty much required in order to get elected as a Republican.
Yet as writer David Codrea notes, in the aftermath of the Pulse nightclub shooting in 2016, he tried to push a bill that would bar anyone on the terrorist watch list from buying a gun. This was a massive problem for many of us, not because we somehow want terrorists buying guns, but because there's no due process for being added to the bill. The feds can literally add anyone they want, and there's no process to challenge your inclusion on the list.
After Parkland, Codrea also notes, Jolly tried to claim that Kyle Kashuv--the only Parkland survivor who got very vocally pro-gun--shouldn't be allowed to buy a firearm due to some stuff he said when he was 16. Jolly claimed Kashuv was likely to become a mass shooter.
It should be noted that Kashuv can still buy guns to this day and has not committed any such atrocity.
In short, without just a couple of years of taking office, Jolly turned on gun owners. I'd argue that he showed his true colors.
And if he runs for governor, his betrayals should be front and center. His claims about supporting the Second Amendment were nothing but a sham, a way to gain office in a district that likely wouldn't have elected him otherwise. His turning into an anti-gun Democrat is likely the result of what he wanted to do all along and couldn't.
He should be held accountable for all of it.
