As some of you know I am working on a Political Campaign. My Candidate is running for Congress (Republican of course) and is honestly a good guy. He recently filled out a gun rights questionnaire and I wanted your opinion on his answers.
He has caught a bit of flak for his answer to question 6 especially. I thought it was pretty clear cut but I wanted to ask others who may be a bit more neutral what they though.
Do you believe that the Constitution is the “supreme law of the land” and that the Bill of Rights acknowledges our birthrights?
Yes.
If so, should these rights be proactively protected from infringement by all levels of government, including city, county and state? Yes
Please give some examples of gun laws you consider constitutional.
Any law that infringes upon the rights of law abiding citizens is NOT constitutional. Most gun control laws do just this. I can think of no current gun control law that I see as constitutional with the possible exception of an instant and foolproof check to make sure the purchaser of a firearm is not a felon.
Please give some examples of gun laws you consider unconstitutional.
I would work to reverse the most oppressive section of the 1968 Gun Control Act. I believe the “Assault Weapons Ban” of 1994 was bad legislation that needed to be repealed. Also, the “feel good” policies that create gun safe zones do more damage to our neighborhoods by inviting criminal elements that have no interest in attaining weapons legally, let alone using them for lawful purposes. Responsible citizens exercising their rights to gun ownership provides a necessary line of defense against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Does the right to bear arms include the right for any peaceable citizen to carry them concealed without a permit, as in Vermont?
Yes, I support, and benefit from, state-level conceal carry and carry laws.
Do you believe that Americans have a right to own, use and carry weapons of military pattern, and will you use the prestige of elected office to publicly promote that right?
The Second Amendment is the law of the land. It protects our right to keep and bear arms. To me, that could not be clearer. I will use the prestige of elected office to publicly promote that right.
Do you support or oppose registration of weapons? Why?
Oppose. Evidence shows that registration laws have had little effect on crime. Criminals will not register their weapons so registration laws only inconvenience law abiding citizens. I have concerns that registration will precede more draconian laws that further infringe upon our rights.
Do you support or oppose licensing requirements to own or carry firearms?
I do not agree with licensing requirements to own a firearm for the same reasons I oppose registration in question 5.
What specific gun laws will you work to get repealed?
Please see my answer to question 4.
If elected, will you back your words of support for firearms rights up with consistent actions? How?
I will always stay true to my word. People will not always agree with every decision I make in Congress, but you will know where I stand and why I believe what I believe. I am a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment and will show this support through the votes I cast in Congress.
I assume that you mean democrats are trying to use the answer to paint him as being not like them? I can’t see how anyone pro-constitution could twist his answer to mean anything that we would find negative.
Reading the INGO thread it appears to be a lot of scrounging for something to criticize. The candidate makes strong simple statements in support of 2A, carry, unconstitutional gun laws, etc.
Since even in that forum there is confusion as to his intent and exact position on detailed issues, I would recommend that your candidate write an article on his position regarding gun rights, in the context of other rights. Then any statement he makes on a detailed issue can also reference his comprehensive article.
When talking to non-gun-nuts we need to constantly link gun rights to other inalienable rights like speech, due process, etc. Any restrictions on those other rights are based on behavior (don’t shout FIRE! in a theatre). The restrictions are not based on the technology used (radio versus full auto). The BOR is the law of the land and the rights protected need to be protected equally broad and vigorously or it weakens them all.
I could see how someone could read the question and answer to #6 (only question 6, no others) and say he didn’t answer the question. All he had to say was Yes then add the rest of his current answer.
When taken in the context of all of his answers though, 6 doesn’t stand out IMO. His views on guns and gun rights seem fairly clear.
I don’t see anything worrisome from a gun rights perspective in that questionnaire. A guy who mentions the GCA of ‘68 as worthy of death sounds like he’s hummin’ my tune.
Thanks guys. being involved in the campaign and a friend of the candidate, I have an obvious bias. I really wanted to make sure I wasn’t looking at it wrong.
Honestly Todd shocked me when he mentioned the '64 GCA. It seems like so few people even know about it outside of hardcore shooters like us. Then again he is a Marine. Nothing should shock me with him!
Yes. Recall that the Revolution started when the Brits went to Concord and Lexington (as they already had at Salem) to confiscate CANNON, stores of powder, and any small arms they found stockpiled.
The patriots knew full well you don’t fight a modern army with muskets alone. If you don’t have artillery then you are toast. The 2A should be read to protect ALL arms, small and crew served. If the “militia” does not have access to full range of arms then it can not serve its purpose to protect against enemies foreign and domestic.
It should be harder to apply the 2A to purely hunting or target guns, and most easily applied ot military grade weapons.
ETA: The 2A protects exactly that which would strike fear into the heart of a tyrant.
I disagree with you. I think the 2nd pretty clearly spells out arms. That means infantry weapons. IMO the 2nd explicitly protects the M-16 series of rifles and M4 series carbines, the M9 pistol, and various other infantry weapons.
I do not believe that it protects the right to “bear” ships or artillery - as one cannot “bear” these. Crew-served weapons would be a gray area and one that I would need to think about a bit more.
But the original comment by orionz06 is correct. The 2nd Amendment makes no mention of the type of arms, military pattern or otherwise. It simply says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It does not discriminate. Period.
I think your candidate is good to go. No, he didn’t come out and say “machine guns for everyone” but hey, baby steps folks. Attacking the GCA of 68’ - I think we know where this guys heart lies.
Over throw tyrants. What would be needed to do that?
If you think the 2A is purely about self defense or hunting you don’t appreciate why we had a revolution. What was being seized at Concord and Lexington?
Compare 2A to 1A. Is any mechanism of producing or promoting speech prohibited? Why then guns?
If enthusiastic gun owners don’t even understand this then God help our country because the avergae Joe certainly won’t.
IMO he clearly hedged on question 6 with an evasive answer.
Why?
Because an affirmative answer to a question about military pattern arms would lead his opponent to take the quote out of context and claim he wants to allow people to own unregistered machine guns with grenade launchers.
we need to constantly link gun rights to other inalienable rights like speech, due process, etc. Any restrictions on those other rights are based on behavior (don’t shout FIRE! in a theatre). The restrictions are not based on the technology used (radio versus full auto). The BOR is the law of the land and the rights protected need to be protected equally broad and vigorously or it weakens them all.