Gun Owners of America
2004 Candidate Questionnaire
Massachusetts
Douglas L. Krick Seat Dist: House Suff 014
79 Chittick Road #2 Phone: 617-626-2564
Boston, MA 02136-3409 Fax:
Please fill out, sign
and return by: July 05, 2004
If you must fax,
use 703-321-8182
1. 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?
Yes. There is no reason to have this restriction, and circumstances do occur for individuals to purchase more than one firearm at a time. For example, a collector might find several firearms at a single location that he wishes to add to his collection. There is no reason to forbid this action.
2. Many localities have attempted to discourage gun ownership by creating a morass of differing municipal ordinances. These rules often snare innocent sportsmen merely passing through a neighboring city.
Do you support preemption legislation
that would totally prohibit localities from placing limitation on the rights of
citizens to purchase, possess, or carry firearms?
Yes. There is no valid reason to restrict firearm ownership. Patchwork laws create situations that no one can reasonably be expected to know all the details of.
Furthermore, Chicago, New York City, and Los Angeles have two things in common: Strict handgun laws, and extremely high crime rates as a direct result of those laws.
3. Many gun-control advocates seek to impose “no-safety” zones, creating a patchwork of places where law-abiding citizens may not possess a firearm for self-defense, i.e., restaurants.
Would you oppose legislation mandating “no-safety” zones designed to ban concealed carry for self-defense?
Yes. The zones that are created do nothing to help the safety of the region, and frequently make it more dangerous to travel in those regions.
4. New York City registered long guns (rifles and shotguns) in 1966. But then ten years ago, the New York Daily News (9/5/92) reported that police began confiscating those very weapons, leading many to argue that registration leads to confiscation.
Would you oppose legislation requiring that firearms purchased by private citizens be registered with law enforcement and tracked by a centralized record system administered by government agencies?
Yes. There is no valid reason for the state to track privately owned firearms.
5. Media Hysteria has led to the misperception that semi-automatic firearms with certain cosmetic features are so-called “assault weapons.” However, all semi-automatic firearms essentially the same.
Do you oppose legislation banning the
manufacture, sale or possession of semi-automatic firearms?
Yes. “Assault weapons” are a legal fiction, with no basis in fact. The sole purpose of this term is to make individuals who hear the term think of fully-automatic weapons. Fully-automatic firearms are already under extra licensing and ownership requirements.
The basis used to determine if a rifle is an assault weapon is based on the number of safety features the rifle has. The pistol grip gives the shooter additional control. The flash-suppressor protects the eyes of the shooter. The list goes on, but it can be boiled down to one thing – people are attempting to ban some of the safest rifles on the market.
6. Common ammunition magazines available for firearms are simple plastic or sheet metal boxes with springs in them. 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 large-capacity magazines?
Yes. There is no legitimate reason for the state to be interested in the magazines used in your weapons. Your magazine is legal if it was made before Sept 13, 1994 but illegal if it was made at a later date. This sort of law is sheer idiocy.
7. Many gun control advocates are seeking to prohibit 18-20 year-olds from possessing firearms, which would treat young persons as if they have no gun and self-defense rights even though they are old enough to fight in the various armed forces serving this country.
Do you oppose laws that would take away
the rights of 18-20 year-olds to possess a firearm?
Yes. Either people are old enough at that age to own firearms, or they aren’t. If they aren’t, the minimum age to enter the military needs to be raised to 21, as they are obviously unable to deal with the responsibilities of firearm ownership. As no one has made noises to raise the minimum age of enlistment, I can only conclude that it is generally accepted that at the age of 18, when a person is legally considered an adult for all things except alcohol consumption, they are able to deal with the responsibility of firearm ownership.
8. 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.
Do you oppose laws that allow persons
who are shot by a properly working firearm to sue firearms manufacturers and/or
firearm sellers (strict liability)?
Yes. The only valid reason to sue a firearm manufacturer or seller is if the product is defective. Laws are already in place to allow people to sue on those grounds.
9. Gun control advocates seek to ban firearm sales at gun shows unless the buyer submits to a background check.
Do you oppose laws that would ban the
sale of a privately owned firearm at a gun show unless the buyer submits to a
background check?
Yes. A private sale between two private individuals should never be regulated as a business transaction. It doesn’t matter if the sale happens between people who are at someone’s home or elsewhere. It remains a private sale between individuals.
10. Gun control advocates push licensing systems with background checks, fingerprinting, high fees, and “training” requirements.
Do you oppose government licensing to buy
a gun?
Yes. The state has no business in regulating firearm sales, and is explicitly prohibited from doing so by the state and federal constitutions.
11. Many gun owners are concerned that so-called “instant” background checks are in fact computerized central gun registration systems.
Do you oppose computerized “instant”
background check systems?
Yes. Not only does the system not work, it also stops some people from buying firearms who could otherwise legally purchase them, due to the vagueness of how individuals are flagged. Furthermore, it isn’t always available, and there has been speculation that the system has been intentionally broken at key times to prevent sales of firearms at certain events.
12. 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. As an example, within the last year my home was broken into. A person running into my bedroom with a baseball bat woke me from a sound sleep. Fortunately, he wasn’t expecting me to be home. When I was found, he and his buddies ran away. If he had decided to attack instead, these safe-storage laws would have prevented me from having any hope of defending myself in my own home.
In many cases, such as when children are not present, the safe-storage laws make no sense from a legal standpoint. Laws like this need to be repealed immediately.
13. Recently, there has been proposed legislation to ban firearms possession for mere misdemeanors that may be no more serious than spanking your child or shouting at your spouse. The legislation specifically targets gun owners, as it does not restrict other rights.
Would you oppose legislation that bans
firearms ownership due to simple misdemeanors?
Yes. The only ethical, legal, and moral way of prohibiting firearm ownership by an individual would be for the sentencing of the crime committed to include a prohibition on his/her 2nd Amendment rights. Anything else is simply unconstitutional.
14. 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. This, 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 for the
commission of a crime?
Yes. Furthermore, I would take this a step further, and recommend Alaskan-style carry laws. The difference is that while you are not required to seek a permit, you do have the option of obtaining one under the old laws, so that you may have the right to carry in the states that recognize the Massachusetts License To Carry permit.
15. 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. Aside from the fact that there is no valid reason to ban ownership of any rifle, these rifles are not used for crimes. They are extremely expensive and not suited for criminal activity. Banning these rifles makes no sense.
Note: Failure to answer will be graded as an anti-gun answer.
Feel free to attach
additional comments to this survey.
I pledge to vote for individual freedom on every issue, every time. Including issues that involve the 2nd Amendment. No exceptions. No excuses.
I have been active in the firearms community since July 2000, when I formed a shooting organization known as the Pink Pistols. Since then it has become a national organization with over 40 chapters in a majority of states.
Candidate Authorization
__________________________________________________
My signature affirms that the answers given above accurately represent my beliefs as a candidate for elective office.
_____________________________________________________ ___________
Candidate’s Signature Date