Gun Control

The rights to life, liberty and property are meaningless without the right to self defense. I oppose all federal restrictions on the sale and possession of defensive weapons.

• The second amendment to the Constitution is clear: "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Historically, the founding fathers never intended there to be a standing army during peacetime, recognizing that governments would be inclined to use them for purposes other than the defense of the country. Their preference was for every citizen to be capable of self defense and national defense. The 'well-regulated militia' were legionnaires, a guerrilla army spread throughout the country, guaranteeing that no foreign aggressor could invade without prolonged and persistent opposition from every capable citizen. Local armories provided weapons training to any citizen who wanted to participate in the national defense.

• The military circumstances today are vastly different from what the founders envisioned, but the philosophical and tactical merits of their position has not changed. The right to life means that you have a right to defend yourself against personal aggression, with whatever means are necessary. You also have a right to defend another victim when it is evident that they are being assaulted. Although police forces like to suggest that they will 'protect and defend' everyone against any assaults, police can only act lawfully after someone's rights have been violated. The best protection against criminal behavior is for the criminal to know, or at least suspect, that every citizen is capable of self-defense.
• The legal issue regarding weapons follows from the concept that a criminal who has violated the rights of others looses claim to all or part of their rights. Their property, liberty and life can be taken if they have acted to destroy the life, liberty or property of another innocent person. Courts, and more specifically, juries, have the obligation to objectively decide who is guilty or innocent of a crime against another. In no way does this 'rule of law' preclude an individual from making a rational and just determination about self-defense when that decision is most critical and consequential.
• The modern problem is where to draw the line on whether or what weapons can reasonably be considered appropriate for self-defense and when that right can be withheld. Obviously, convicted felons can properly be precluded from owning any weapon. It's also apparent that a child, or even an untrained adult, cannot use certain weapons in self-defense. Their attempted use could put life and limb in serious jeopardy, both their own and others. We also assume that a minor or retarded person cannot provide informed consent to a transaction that involves a deadly weapon. Moreover, weapons come in various degrees of proximate risk to innocent bystanders. Some are simply not appropriate for self-defense. My neighbor may like the idea of having an armed M-1 tank in his garage, but it can hardly be classified as a tool of self-defense!
• States may properly limit the acquisition and possession of certain weapons by felons, the mentally ill and children. As with other real property, it may provide or require ownership registration. As it does with vehicles, it may properly require certain training and demonstrated knowledge of common law regarding the use of weapons.
• All of these restrictions are optional for each state. The Constitution prohibits the federal government from imposing any of these restrictions on the states, by virtue of both the 2nd and 10th Amendments. As a Congressman, I will oppose the imposition of any guidelines on any state in the union. If a state chooses to impose no penalty or control of police, sport or personal defense weapons, the federal government has no constitutional basis to intervene. Nor does the federal government have the power to use federal tax dollars to support any state registration or enforcement.
• It is the federal government's primary obligation to protect and defend constitutional rights against unreasonable and confiscatory state laws. As a congressman, I will oppose any federal laws relating to the import, export, interstate trade, safety or registration of any non- military weapons. I will seek to repeal the Brady Bill and restrict the BATF to the investigation of illegal transfers of military weapons.
• The incumbent 24th Congressional District Representative has co-sponsored four bills that would impose federal restrictions (HR12, HR476, HR492, HR1047) on non-military weapons, has endorsed the Brady Bill, and favored a broad expansion of federal control over defensive weapons.