Gun control advocates are calling for limits on the number of firearms that a law-abiding citizen may purchase in a specified time period, usually one per month. Do you oppose “one-gun-a-month” laws that limit purchases of firearms by law-abiding citizens?
Many localities have attempted to discourage gun ownership by creating a morass of differing municipal ordinances. These rules can snare innocent gun owners merely passing through a neighboring city. Do you support preemption legislation that would prohibit localities from placing additional burdensome limitations on the rights of citizens to purchase, possess, or carry firearms, thus keeping gun laws consistent throughout the state?
Yes. I consider such laws to be unconstitutional.
Do you support legislation to strengthen preemption laws to hold local officials criminally liable if they violate preemption laws?
Yes. I would also support laws that would prohibit NYS courts from enforcing any law that violates the 2nd Amendment (prohibition of the state’s authority).
Many gun control advocates seek to impose gun-free “no-safety” zones, creating a patchwork of places where law-abiding citizens may not possess a firearm for self-defense. Would you oppose any legislation mandating gun-free “no-safety” zones — at schools, restaurants, churches, colleges or universities — all of which are designed to ban carry for self-defense?
Gun control advocates label semi-automatic firearms with certain cosmetic features as so-called “assault weapons.” However, all semi-automatic firearms are functionally the same (one round fired per one pull of the trigger.) Would you oppose any legislation that bans certain types of semi-automatic firearms (commonly referred to as “assault weapons”)?
Certain lawmakers have called for a ban on “bump stocks” or other devices that allegedly “increase the rate of fire” of a semi-automatic firearm. However, the ATF has determined multiple times that bump stocks do not convert a semi-automatic firearm into a fully automatic firearm. Would you oppose any effort to ban bump stocks?
Common ammunition magazines available for firearms are simple, spring-loaded plastic or metal boxes. There are efforts to ban magazines that hold over a certain number of rounds. Do you oppose legislation banning the manufacture, sale or possession of magazines, regardless of their capacity?
Many gun control advocates are seeking to prohibit 18-20 year-olds from possessing firearms, which would treat young adults as if they have no Second Amendment rights, even though they are old enough to serve in the armed forces. Do you oppose laws that would take away the rights of 18-20 year-olds to buy and possess firearms?
Yes. I was allowed to use a firearm at the age of 12 because I had a father that taught me how to handle and use and respect a weapon. I would support any law that removed the age requirement completely.
Do you oppose strict liability and/or other laws that allow persons who are shot by a properly working firearm to sue firearms manufacturers or firearms sellers? Manufacturers of any product are held liable if the product is defective and causes injury. Yet some politicians want to hold gun manufacturers liable when a properly working firearm is used to commit a crime or is involved in an accident.
Gun control advocates seek to ban private firearm sales unless the buyer submits to a background check — a policy that is frequently referred to as Universal Background Checks. Do you oppose Universal Background Checks?
Many gun owners have concerns with so-called “instant” background checks. Not only do they effectively serve as a computerized central gun registration system, they also serve as “prior restraints.” In other words, just as Americans are not constitutionally required to prove their innocence before buying a book or surfing the Internet, similarly, gun owners insist the same rules should apply when buying a gun. Do you oppose computerized “instant” background check systems?
Yes. I support the creation of the ability for background checks, but not the mandatory non-sale of a weapon without a background check. Making a background check mandatory is an infringement of the 2nd Amendment by the state, and the federal government has no constitutional power to demand a background check.
Gun control advocates want handguns mechanically locked when not in use. Do you oppose government-mandated use of trigger locks or other locked storage requirements?
Yes. Trigger locks, a small button that can easily be pushed aside when needed, is a smart feature. It should be a single push release, nothing more. Locked and in storage when not in use is an unconstitutional infringement on your right to bear arms.
New Hampshire, which does not require a permit for concealed or open carry, is often ranked as one of the safest states in the country. Today, there are 17 permitless carry states that enable law-abiding citizens to carry firearms without begging for permission or getting registered like sex offenders. Would you support Constitutional Carry 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 for any reason except for the commission of a crime?
Yes. The people who do not own a gun should be required to register with the police so police can focus on protecting those individuals. They can also pay for the extra police protection service.
Many gun control advocates are seeking to ban the private ownership of .50 caliber rifles. Do you oppose banning the private ownership of .50 caliber rifles?
Yes. I oppose the banning of any weapon, including tanks and other military-type weapons. I would support strict enforcement of the rule “do no harm to another”.
Nine states have enacted a Firearms Freedom Acts, which holds that any firearm that is made in the state, identified as such, and stays in the state is exempt from all federal firearms laws. Some states also include criminal penalties against government officials who attempt, in defiance of the Firearms Freedom Act, to enforce regulations upon exempt firearms. Would you support a Firearms Freedom statute that includes criminal penalties against government officials who attempt to enforce regulations upon exempt firearms?
Yes. I would also support a Firearms Freedom statute that includes criminal penalties against government officials who create a classification of exempt and non-exempt firearms. The right to bear arms refers to all weapons.
Most states which have enacted concealed carry laws also have some type of reciprocity process, whereby permits issued by other states are also valid within their borders. However, these reciprocity schemes are typically arbitrary and tend to penalize states with strongly pro-gun carry laws. A better method is genuine recognition, rather than reciprocity, whereby if a person can legally carry in his home state, that person can legally carry in all states. Do you support legislation mandating full recognition of out-of-state concealed carry permits?
Yes. Everyone -American Citizen or resident- should be allowed to carry a weapon.
A very popular device utilized by gun owners and hunters is a suppresser, which muffles the sound of a gunshot. However, suppressors are highly regulated by the unconstitutional National Firearms Act (NFA), which requires intensive background checks, waiting periods, tax stamps and registration. Moreover, certain states further regulate or even ban suppressors, in spite of the NFA restrictions. A. Would you oppose any effort to further regulate or ban suppressors?
Yes. Everyone should have a suppressor on their weapon if they are practice shooting. Otherwise, for self-defense purposes, no suppressor should be used. That is about the closest to ‘infringement’ I will go. It should be a voluntary decision.
Would you support legislation to legalize/remove state-level restrictions, such as licenses, taxes, or registration, on suppressors?
After recent mass shootings, there has been a major effort to amend state laws to allow the issuance of Gun Confiscation Orders (GCOs). Sugar-coated as “red-flag laws” or “extreme violence protection orders,” Gun Confiscation Orders would allow police or an aggrieved “ex” to convene a secret hearing from which the gun owner would be excluded. In anti-gun states where GCO’s have already been enacted, judges routinely “ask few questions” before issuing the order to ransack the gun owner’s home and, if he or she resists, to arrest or even shoot him or her. This suspension of Second, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights would occur without probable cause and, in fact, without the existence of any crime at all. Would you oppose legislation proposing Gun Confiscation Orders?
Yes. I would also support legislation that would remove from office any judge and any officer that attempted to enforce our Red-Flag laws with a hearing compliant with our 4th and 14th Amendment rights.