Chuck Moulton - U.S. Congress - Questionnaires

Gun Owners of America

Proposed legislation in Congress would require gun owners and buyers to submit to a host of new restrictions. Concerning this proposed legislation, would you:
1. oppose requiring handgun buyers to pass a mandatory safety test?
2. oppose limiting buyers to one purchase per month?
3. oppose requiring the BATF or the FBI to computerize (i.e., register) firearms owners' records?
4. oppose increasing license fees for gun dealers?
5. oppose requiring mandatory trigger-locks or other locked storage requirements?
I oppose all of these restrictions. Specifically, I oppose requiring handgun buyers to pass a mandatory safety test, limiting buyers to one purchase per month, requiring the BATF or the FBI to computerize firearms owners' records, increasing license fees for gun dealers, and requiring mandatory trigger-locks or other locked storage requirements. Such restrictions would be Unconstitutional under the Second Amendment and do not fall within the federal government's enumerated powers.

The government has no power to so regulate guns under its enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8. I subscribe to a very narrow interpretation of the Commerce Clause in which interstate commerce may only be regulated for economic reasons (such as preventing states from setting tariffs), not social policy.

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.
The Justice Department reported in 1989 that, "Any system that requires a criminal history record check prior to purchase of a firearm creates the potential for automated tracking of individuals who seek to purchase a firearm." This means that any background check -- whether an "instant check" or otherwise -- can result in a registration list of gun owners.
1. Would you support a repeal of the 1993 Brady instant check?
2. If yes, would you introduce legislation repealing this Act?
3. If no to 2B, would you cosponsor such legislation?
I support a repeal of the 1993 Brady instant check and would introduce the legislation. The law is Unconstitutional under the Second Amendment and does not fall within the federal government's enumerated powers.
Would you oppose legislation requiring background checks on private firearms transactions at gun shows?
I oppose legislation requiring background checks on private firearms transactions at gun shows. Such legislation would be Unconstitutional under the Second Amendment and does not fall within the federal government's enumerated powers.
So-called "assault weapons" are mechanically identical to all other semi-automatic firearms -- firearms which are useful for hunting or self-defense. Nevertheless, Congress banned more than 180 types of semi-automatic firearms based entirely on appearance or accessories. This law is set to sunset in 2004, and no doubt, there will be attempts to extend this ban in perpetuity.

Would you oppose legislation to keep in place the 1994 law banning many types of semi-automatic firearms and limiting magazine capacity?
I oppose legislation to keep in place the 1994 law banning many types of semi-automatic firearms and limiting magazine capacity. The law is Unconstitutional under the Second Amendment and does not fall within the federal government's enumerated powers.
Would you support cutting funds for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF)?
I support cutting funds for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and would introduce the legislation. Regulation of firearms is Unconstitutional under the Second Amendment and does not fall within the federal government's enumerated powers.
1. Do you believe an individual has a right to use deadly force in defending self and family from violent assault -- both in or away from the home?
2. If yes, would you cosponsor legislation protecting this right?
I support legislation protecting an individual's right to use deadly force in defending self and family from violent assault -- both in and away from the home -- and would introduce the legislation.
In 1996, Congress enacted a gun ban known as the Lautenberg Domestic Misdemeanor Gun Ban. It disarms otherwise law-abiding citizens for life -- for offenses as slight as spanking a child or grabbing a souse's wrist.
1. Would you support a repeal of the Lautenberg Domestic Gun Ban?
2. If yes, would you introduce legislation repealing this Act?
3. If no to 7B, would you cosponsor such legislation?
I support a repeal of the Lautenberg Domestic Misdemeanor Gun Ban and would introduce the legislation. The law is Unconstitutional under the Second Amendment and does not fall within the federal government's enumerated powers.
Another gun ban enacted in 1996 is known as the Kohl Gun Free Zones Ban. It would create a virtual one-half mile wide "gun free" circle around every school in America (or a 1,000 foot zone going in any one direction from any school). The Congress enacted this ban, even though the Supreme Court had stated the year before in U.S. v. Lopez (1995) that the Commerce Clause could not be used to justify banning firearms within a school zone.
1. Would you support a repeal of the Kohl Gun Free Zones Ban?
2. If yes, would you introduce legislation repealing this Act?
3. If no to 8B, would you cosponsor such legislation?
I support a repeal of the Kohl Gun Free Zones Ban and would introduce the legislation. The law is Unconstitutional under the Second Amendment and does not fall within the federal government's enumerated powers. I agree with Justice Thomas's interpretation of the Commerce Clause in his Lopez concurring opinion.
Would you oppose a ban on any type of ammunition?
If no, what type(s)?
I oppose a ban on any type of ammunition. Such a ban would be Unconstitutional under the Second Amendment and does not fall within the federal government's enumerated powers.
1. Would you 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?
2. If yes, would you cosponsor legislation protecting this right?
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 guaranteed 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 prohibited 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.
Would you oppose any legislation:
1. requiring trigger locks to be sold with every retail handgun;
2. requiring firearms intended for self-protection to be locked up when they are not in use; or
3. requiring gun makers to install so-called "smart gun" technology into the firearms they make?
I oppose all of these restrictions. Specifically, I oppose requiring trigger locks to be sold with every retail handgun, requiring firearms intended for self-protection to be locked up when they are not in use, and requiring gun makers to install so-called "smart gun" technology into the firearms they make. Such restrictions would be Unconstitutional under the Second Amendment and does not fall within the federal government's enumerated powers.
Persons who are shot by a properly- working firearm should not be able to sue firearms manufacturers and/or firearms sellers (strict liability).
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.
Vermont has one of the lowest violent crime rates in the nation. The Vermont carry law recognizes that every citizen has the right to carry a gun, openly or concealed, except to commit a crime. Thus, with no government bureaucracy or license, Vermont citizens or citizens from any state can carry firearms concealed in Vermont.

Would you support Vermont-style legislation that would eliminate all requirements to pay fees and register gun owners and simply allow law abiding citizens to carry firearms openly or concealed (at the individual's discretion) for any reason except to commit a crime?

I support Vermont-style legislation that would eliminate all requirements to pay fees and register gun owners and simply allow law abiding citizens to carry firearms openly or concealed (at the individual's discretion). The law would be redundant though because these rights are already guaranteed 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 prohibited 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.

Also, Vermont doesn't go far enough. Carrying 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.