Chuck Moulton - U.S. Congress - Questionnaires - Firearms Owners Against Crime

Firearms Owners Against Crime

Based upon current Federal firearm laws, do you support or oppose any additional Federal legislation regulating firearms? (Circle one)
1. Support additional regulatory legislation
2. Oppose additional regulatory legislation
3. Undecided
Comments:
I oppose any additional Federal legislation regulating firearms and support repealing existing Federal legislation regulating firearms because it is Unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Gun ownership is a right, not a privilege. As a Libertarian Constitutional scholar, I am acutely aware of the differences between rights and privileges: privileges can be licensed, rights cannot. If government licenses an activity, that gives it the power to deny the license when it wants to. Government does not have the power to prohibit rights. I oppose licensing of guns and all government regulation of guns.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is a declaratory clause, not a restrictive clause. If the Second Amendment were rewritten today, it might read "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged." The "people" refers to all people in the United States, not just those in the military.

The right to bear arms is not just for hunting and not just for those in the military. It is especially important for the ability to overthrow an oppressive government and self-defense against criminals. Registering firearms would allow an oppressive government to go collect those firearms when it decided to quash all political opposition, which has already happened in Illinois and England.

The Fourteenth Amendment extends the restrictions of the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, to all state governments as well.

I am no compromise on the Second Amendment.

For each of the following types of firearms, please indicate -- by placing an "X" under the appropriate category -- whether you support or oppose Federal legislation banning their manufacture, sale, and/or transfer:

Type	Support	Oppose
All handguns		X
Some handguns		X
All semi-automatic firearms		X
Some semi-automatic firearms		X

Comments:

Federal legislation banning their manufacture, sale, and/or transfer of firearms is Unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

Type	Support	Oppose
All handguns		X
Some handguns		X
All semi-automatic firearms		X
Some semi-automatic firearms		X

Comments:

Legislation banning firearm possession by private citizens is Unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

Please indicate for each of the following whether you would support or oppose Federal legislation requiring owners to register their firearms for entry into a centralized state file or computer.

Type	Support	Oppose
All firearms		X
All handguns		X
Some handguns		X
All semi-automatic firearms		X
Some semi-automatic firearms		X

Comments:

Legislation requiring owners to register their firearms is Unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

For each of the following categories of gun owners, do you support or oppose licensing in order to own firearms? (Licensing, as used here, refers to legislation requiring firearm owners to obtain from a governmental official or agency a license to possess a firearm; as a rule, licensing laws require a background investigation of the applicant and sometimes require fingerprinting.)

Type	Support	Oppose
All firearms owners		X
All handguns owners		X
Some handguns owners		X
All semi-automatic firearms owners		X
Some semi-automatic firearms owners		X

Comments:

Licensing of firearms is Unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

Should local governments be permitted to enact laws relating to the acquisition, possession, transfer, or transportation of firearms and ammunition, or should only State governments have that right? (Circle one)
1. Local governments should be permitted to enact such laws
2. Only the State government should be permitted to enact such laws
3. Neither the State nor local government can infringe on a Constitutional Right
Comments:
Such laws would be Unconstitutional under the Second Amendment coupled with the Fourteenth Amendment.
There are an increasing number of lawsuits being filed against firearm manufacturers and dealers. Would you support or oppose legislation exempting manufacturers and dealers who have complied with all firearm laws from such liability? (Circle one)
1. I would support such legislation
2. I would oppose such legislation
3. Undecided
Comments:
I believe persons who are shot by a properly-working firearm should not be able to sue firearms manufacturers and/or firearms sellers. As for whether I would support legislation codifying the above, the issue is a bit more complicated. The federal government clearly has the power to limit liability in federal courts. Under the Tenth Amendment it would seem states should decide for themselves whether to limit liability in their state courts. However, this situation falls under the narrow scope of the Commerce Clause. If gun manufacturers could be held liable for guns sold across state lines, one state could hold gun manufacturers from other another state hostage, extorting large sums of money in lawsuits. As I interpret the Commerce Clause, the federal government could limit liability in interstate cases (where the gun manufacturer and gun purchaser or gun-related death reside in different states), but not in intrastate cases (where the gun manufacturer, gun purchaser, and gun-related death reside in the same state). I support federal legislation limiting liability of firearms manufacturers and/or firearms sellers for persons who are shot by a properly-working firearm for all interstate cases.
Do you believe that an individual does or does not have the right to use deadly force in defending his/her family and/or home? (Circle one)
1. Does have the right
2. Does not have the right
3. Undecided
Comments:
I support legislation protecting an individual's right to use deadly force in defending self and family from violent assault -- both in or away from the home -- and would introduce the legislation. However I believe the force used must be proprtional. If the criminal was not threatening serious bodily harm, deadly force would not be appropriate. Incapacitating such a criminal would be appropriate.

For each of the following reasons, indicate whether you support or oppose firearm ownership for citizens of the United States.

Type	Support	Oppose
Hunting		X
Competitive shooting		X
Informal sport shooting (i.e. plinking)		X
Gun collecting		X
Personal protection		X

Comments:

The Second Amendment guarentees the right to keep and bear arms for any purpose.

Who should pay the cost of a background investigation for, and related costs associated with, the issuance of a permit to carry a concealed firearm? (Circle one)
1. Costs should be paid by the gun owner seeking the carry permit
2. Costs should be paid by the Government
3. Costs should be shared by the gun owner and the Government
Comments:
The question is moot because permits (and thus background investigations) for concealed firearms are Unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.
If elected, would you work for or against efforts to gain reciprocity/recognition of permits to carry a concealed firearm between states? (Circle one)
1. I would work for recognition of permits
2. I would work against recognition of permits
3. Undecided
Comments:
I support reciprocity legislation which would allow a person who has the right to carry a concealed weapon in his or her home state to have that right extended to all other states. The law would be redundant though because this right is already guarenteed by the Second Amendment coupled with the Fourteenth Amendment. There is a potential Tenth Amendment issue here. Generally I favor letting states enact their own laws without federal interference. I interpret the Commerce Clause very narrowly. If states were not already prohibbitted from regulating firearms under the Second Amendment coupled with the Fourteenth Amendment, the federal government would lack the power to pass a law such as the one you describe.
Which of the following best describes your attitude toward hunting? (Circle one)
1. Hunting for sport should be eliminated
2. Hunting for food -- but not sport -- is acceptable
3. Hunting is unacceptable for any reason
4. Hunting for any reason is a valuable use of wildlife resources and a tool for wildlife management
Comments:
Personally I am opposed to killing for sport. However, I would not legislate my morals on others. The federal government has no power to ban hunting, and (even if it did) doing so would be a bad idea. People may make their own decisions about the morality of hunting for sport.
There is growing concern about the number of firearms-related deaths of children. Would you support or oppose legislation mandating basic firearm safety education in our public schools? (Circle one)
1. I would support such legislation
2. I would support and co-sponsor such legislation
3. I would oppose such legislation
Comments:
Education policy should be left to the states and school boards. The Tenth Amendment leaves education to state governments. When the federal government mandates things on state and local governments, we get uniformity. A better system results when localities are allowed the freedom to innovate, creating a marketplace of ideas. In a marketplace of ideas, schools can look around at what their neighbors are doing, adopting the practices that work best. It's free market economics at its finest.

If I were on a school board I would support adding a firearms safety course to the curriculum. But I am running for U.S. Congress, not school board. Educational policy would be outside the scope of my job.
Does the Second Amendment to the U. S. Constitution guarantee an individual's right to keep and bear arms, or does it refer to the right of states to form a militia? (Circle one)
1. Guarantees an individual's right
2. Guarantees a state's right to form militia
3. Not sure
Comments:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is a declaratory clause, not a restrictive clause. If the Second Amendment were rewritten today, it might read "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged." The "people" refers to all people in the United States, not just those in the military.
Under which of the following circumstances do you support a waiting period? (Circle one.)
1. For the purchase of handguns ‘only’
2. For the purchase of long guns (rifles and shotguns) ‘only’
3. For the purchase of both handguns and long guns
4. Under no circumstances do I support waiting periods before the purchase of a firearm
Comments:
Government mandated waiting periods are Unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.
Do you support or oppose the Federal ban on the importation of firearms designated as assault weapons?
1. I support the ban on the importation of such firearms.
2. I oppose the ban on the importation of such firearms.
3. Undecided
Comments:
The Federal ban on the importation of firearms designated as assault weapons is Unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.
Would you support or oppose legislation which mandates the use of trigger locks by individuals owning firearms? (Circle one)
1. I would support the mandatory use of trigger locks
2. I would oppose the mandatory use of trigger locks
3. Undecided
Comments:
Government mandated trigger locks are Unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.
Should legislation be proposed to permit or prohibit the efforts of law enforcement agencies to register, track and keep records on the firearms purchased by private citizens? (Circle one.)
1. Legislation should be proposed to permit this type of activity.
2. Legislation should be proposed to prohibit this type of activity.
3. Undecided
Comments:
Government registration and tracking of firearms are Unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.
Do you support or oppose additional controls on, and oversight of, Federal law enforcement agencies?
1. I support additional controls and oversight.
2. I oppose additional controls and oversight.
3. Undecided
Comments:
Federal law enforcement agencies are out of control. They regularly do things outside the scope of government power and should be held accountable for their Unconstitutional actions.
Currently, firearms purchasers are not permitted to review their records when they are denied the right to purchase a firearm. Would you support or oppose legislation that allows individuals to review and challenge the information contained in their records that was the reason for the denial of the right to purchase a firearm?
1. I would support legislation allowing firearm purchasers to review and challenge their records
2. I would oppose legislation allowing firearm purchasers to review and challenge their records
3. Undecided
Comments:
Under the Second Amendment government cannot deny people the right to purchase firearms. It's impossible to deny a right. The government has been confusing rights with privileges. Gun ownership is a right, not a privilege.

Even if the government could deny people the right to purchase firearms, it must guarentee due process under the Fifth Amendment. Denying people the right to review and challenge their records is a violation of due process.
Do you support or oppose bans on any type of ammunition or bullets? (Circle one.)
1. I support such bans.
2. I oppose such bans.
Comments:
Government banning of ammunition and bullets is Unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.
Do you support or oppose the moratorium on the manufacture and sale of high-capacity (10-rounds or greater) magazines as enacted in the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994?
1. I support the moratorium on high-capacity magazines.
2. I oppose the moratorium on high-capacity magazines.
3. Undecided
Comments:
The moratorium on the manufacture and sale of high-capacity magazines as enacted in the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 is Unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.
Would you support or oppose legislation which would limit the number of firearms an individual may purchase in a given time period? (Circle one)
1. I would support such legislation
2. I would oppose such legislation
3. Undecided
Comments:
Legislation mandating limits on the number of firearms an individual may purchase in a given time period would be Unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

Attempts are now being made to classify accidents involving children and firearms as criminal acts. Please indicate whether you would support or oppose legislation making those listed below criminally liable for children killing or wounding themselves or others with a firearm.

Type	Support	Oppose
Making the gun owners criminally liable		X
Making the gun dealer criminally liable		X
Making the gun manufacturer criminally liable		X

Comments:

An accident should not be a criminal act, so there should be no criminal liability attached to it.

Would you support or oppose legislation banning the manufacture, sale, or transfer of large-capacity magazines? (Circle one)
1. Support
2. Oppose
3. Undecided
Comments:
Legislation banning the manufacture, sale, or transfer of large-capacity magazines would be Unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.
Should those who purchase firearms be required by law to undergo training in the safe operation of such firearms? (Circle one)
1. Yes
2. No
3. Undecided
Comments:
Government mandated training would be Unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.
Should the Government give a tax credit to those who voluntarily undergo training in the safe operation of firearms? (Circle one)
1. Yes
2. No
3. Undecided
Comments:
I support a flat tax and the elimination of all tax credits. Tax credits legislate morality by redistributing wealth between the general populace and people with good behavior as defined by the government. The federal government has no power to engage in such a practice under Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.
Do you support or oppose the continuation of the Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP) which promotes basic marksmanship training for civilians, and makes available for civilian purchase surplus military firearms?
1. I support the continuation of the CMP program.
2. I oppose the continuation of the CMP program.
3. Undecided
Comments:
The federal government has no power to engage in such a program under Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.
There has been concern in recent years over the disruption of hunting activities by anti-hunting groups and individuals. Would you support or oppose legislation that prohibits deliberate interference with lawful hunting? (Circle one)
1. Would support such legislation
2. Would oppose such legislation
3. Undecided
Comments:
Free speech is guarenteed by the First Amendment. Anti-hunting groups disrupting hunting activities is a clear expression of free speech. However, on private property tresspassing laws could certainly be enforced to remove the nuisance.
Should there be additional taxes on the sale of firearms and/or ammunition? (Circle one)
1. Yes, there should be additional taxes
2. No, there should not be additional taxes
3. Undecided
Comments:
Taxes legislate morality by redistributing wealth between the general populace and people with bad behavior as defined by the government. The federal government has no power to engage in such a practice under Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. Further, excessive taxation would violate the Second Amendment. For example, if all guns were taxed a flat fee of $50,000, clearly the right to keep and bear arms would be abridged by the government. The same logic applies to smaller taxes.
Would you support or oppose repeal of the existing ban on the sale of newly manufactured machine guns?
1. I would support repeal of the existing ban.
2. I would oppose repeal of the existing ban.
3. Undecided
Comments:
Government banning of newly manufactured machine guns is Unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.
Should the government participate in firearm "buy-back" programs, or should the government stay out of gun buy-backs? (Circle one)
1. The government should participate in such "buy-backs"
2. The government should stay out of such programs
3. Undecided
Comments:
The federal government has no power to engage in such a program under Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.
Should the government require that gun owners carry special insurance, or should the government place no special insurance requirements on gun owners? (Circle one)
1. The government should require gun owners to carry special insurance
2. The government should place no special insurance requirements on gun owners
3. Undecided
Comments:
Government mandated insurance for gun owners is Unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.
Do you support or oppose more severe mandatory sentences for the use of a gun in a crime by repeat offenders? (Circle one)
1. I would support more severe mandatory sentences
2. I would oppose more severe mandatory sentences
3. Undecided
Comments:
Using firearms to commit a crime should not itself be a crime. Firearms are just an instrument. The only crime in robbing or murdering someone with a gun is the robbing or murdering, not the gun use. A crime is not more reprehensible if the gun is the instrument than it would be if the instrument were a knife, poison, etc.
Would you support or oppose a review of how current ‘protection from abuse’ (PFA) systems are used? (Circle one)
1. I would support a review of PFA practices
2. I would oppose a review of PFA practices
3. Undecided
Comments:
Protection from abuse systems are often used to deprive people of their right to bear arms. This is Unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. Even if it were allowed under the Second Amendment, there are due process concerns under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. All PFA systems should be reviewed to audit their constitutionality.
Current Federal law limits the discretion of Federal Judges when sentencing violent career criminals. Do you support or oppose limitations on the discretion of Judges when sentencing violent repeat offenders who use firearms in the commission of crimes? (Circle one)
1. I would support discretionary limits on Judges
2. I would oppose discretionary limits on Judges
3. Undecided
Comments:
Mandatory minimums often mandate imposing draconian sentences very out proportion to the crime. Judges are usually better able to evaluate case by case scenarios and the appropriate sentences than legislatures out of touch with the criminal justice system are.
In the past, certain Senators introduced a resolution calling for a formal Conference of the States. This resolution languished in the Senate amid concerns that it could turn into a Constitutional Convention. Would you support or oppose legislation calling for a Conference of the States? (Circle one)
1. I would support legislation calling for a Conference of the States
2. I would oppose legislation calling for a Conference of the States
3. Undecided
Comments:
A Conference of the States could lead to a Constitutional Convention, which in turn could lead to a new government without the individual rights protections and government power restrictions enshrined in our current U.S. Constitution.
Do you support or oppose altering the Bill of Rights, under certain circumstances, to fight acts of domestic terrorism?
1. I support altering the Bill of Rights under certain circumstances.
2. I oppose altering the Bill of Rights under certain circumstances.
3. I support altering the Bill of Rights under any circumstances.
4. I oppose altering the Bill of Rights under any circumstances.
Comments:
The only Constitutional Amendments I would support are those that would expand individual rights and/or restrict government power more. And even those would have to be evaluated on a case by case basis.

Do you support or oppose Campaign Finance Reform measures? (Please indicate whether you would support or oppose each of the following:).

Type	Support	Oppose
Limitations on campaign contributions		X
Restrictions on release of incumbent voting records and statements		X
Limitations on media (print & broadcast) endorsements of candidates		X
Public release of all contributors’ names and affiliations	X
Other: Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act		X

Comments:

Campaign contributions, endorsements, etc. are free speech, so under the First Amendment government cannot restrict them.

There are efforts being made to expand the usage of Pennsylvania State Game Lands to allow secondary uses of these regions. Pennsylvania receives federal Pittman-Robertson funds (derived from excise taxes on the sale of firearms and sporting equipment and allocated based on the number of hunting and fishing licenses sold each year) that are specifically dedicated to the preservation of wildlife and the hunting and fishing pastimes. Please indicate by placing an “X” whether you would support or oppose the following:

Type	Support	Oppose
Opening State Game Lands for any usage
Allowing secondary usage only after hunting season
Prohibit all activities other than Hunting & Fishing

Comments:

The question is moot. Under the Tenth Amendment, these decisions should be left up to the states. The federal government has no power to legislate this. I oppose any federal legislation which attempts to cirumvent the Tenth Amendment by threatening the withholding of federal funds unless a certain state decision is reached. This is outright extortion, and itself a violation of the Tenth Amendment.

The federal government has no power to give funds for state game lands under Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. In addition the government has no power to tax the sale of firearms and sporting equipment under Article I, Section 8. The federal government should not legislate morality, through taxation or otherwise.

Legislation has been proposed at the state and federal level to add significant new restrictions to gun shows, their operation and their promoters. Some public figures have said that there is a ‘gun show loophole’ that exists in the law. Currently, gun dealers who sell at gun shows are required to abide by federal law whether a gun is sold on their premises or at a gun show. Please indicate whether you support or oppose greater restrictions on gun shows:
1. I support increased gun show restrictions
2. I oppose increased gun show restrictions
3. Undecided
Comments:
The federal government has no power to give regulate intrastate commerce under the Commerce Clause. Gun shows are by definition intrastate commerce. In addition, gun show restrictions would be Unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.
Do you participate in any sport involving the use of a firearm?
1. Yes Specify:
2. No
Comments:
I did some competitive shooting of targets while an active Boy Scout, but that was at least 7 years ago.
If you are a member of any sportsmen's clubs or organizations, firearms/shooting sports organizations, or firearms-related political or educational organizations, please list them in the space below.
1. Gun Owners of America
Comments:
I am no compromise on the Second Amendment, and in my opinion Gun Owners of America is the gun rights organization that is most consistent with those principles.
Please identify all public offices you have ever held or now hold (please include military service):
1. None.
Comments:
This is my first race for public office. I have leadership positions in a number of school clubs and private organizations though. I am a member of the Libertarian National Committee and a member of the Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania Board of Directors. At Villanova Law School I am a member of the Student Bar Association (student government), Secretary of the Federalist Society, and President of the American Civil Liberties Union, Digital Law Society, and Libertarian Committee.