Political Party:   Libertarian

Office you are running for: Governor of Oregon

State: Oregon

County: <all>

District: <all>
 

1) Do you believe that the Second Amendment confirms the individual right of every American citizen to possess and use (update of keep and bear) militia/military weapons for individual self-defense, as well as for the defense of the State / National defense?

Yes.  I believe that self defense is a natural right.  I believe the Second Amendment protects and guarantees that existing right.  And I believe that the Oregon Constitution separately protects the same right.  As governor I will work to guarantee all citizens the equal opportunity to exercise the right of self (and collective) defense, and their right to own tools to better exercise that right.

10 Points
 

2) If elected would you support legislation for the removal of firearm laws and regulations? If your answer is yes, and if you are elected, what specific legislation would you propose/support to ensure that this individual right is protected? Which current laws which infringe upon this individual right would you seek to repeal?

Yes.  Oregon has a number of useless and counter-productive laws and rules that do nothing for safety, but seem designed to harass lawful gun owners.  I will work to repeal them all.

10 Points
 

3) What do you consider are "legitimate" reasons to own a firearm?
 Check as many as apply:
   [ ] Personal Defense
   [ ] Home Defense
   [ ] Defense of your country (Unorganized Militia)
   [ ] Hunting
   [ ] Farm Use
   [ ] Competitive Shooting
   [ ] Informal Sport Shooting
   [ ] Informal Target Practice and/or Plinking
   [ ] Collecting
   [ ] Constitutional Rights
   [X] Other _Any and every non-criminal reason is legitimate._
   [X] All of the above
   [ ] None of the above

10 Points
 

4) Would you support the banning of some firearms or ammunition? (IE: Saturday night specials, "assault weapons", Hollow points, and "Safety Slugs") Why and to what extent?

No.  I would, however, support banning certain *people* (convicted violent felons) from possessing any firearm.

10 Points
 

5) Do you believe that firearms and/or firearm owners should be registered? Which ones and why?

No.  Every registry scheme must, by the Fifth Amendment, exclude convicted violent felons from registering.  If they cannot be required to register, then nobody should.  In principle, no registration should be required for the exercise of a natural human right.

10 Points
 

6) Do you support equal rights for all citizens of the United States regardless of the person's sexuality / orientation and / or gender identity/expression?

Of course.  By definition all natural rights must apply to all people equally.

10 Points
 

7) Which of the following would you be willing to support in regards to same-gender and/or polyamorous marriages and/or civil unions?
 Check as many as apply:
   [ ] Domestic partnerships for same-sex couples
   [ ] Domestic partnerships for opposite-sex couples
   [ ] Domestic partnerships for polyamorous (more than two consenting adults)
   [ ] Same-sex marriages
   [ ] Opposite sex marriages (What we have now)
   [ ] Polyamarous marriages (between more than two consenting adults)
   [ ] All of the above. Everyone should have equal rights under the law.
   [X] None of the above. Government has no role in defining a marriage. Leave it to the church.
   [X] Other  A "marriage" is a combination of property rights, private expectations, and legal rights.  To the extent it is possible, I would like to see marriage privatized -- transformed into a private contract between any two or more consenting adults.

The other advantages of marriage, namely the inheritance of property without tax, and immunity from coerced testimony, may be harder to privatize, but I think they should be.

Between now and the day we get marriage privatized, I would support any measure that increases the equal protections provided to adults, but I would oppose creating any system of special rights, special preferences, etc. that would apply to some people but not others.

10 Points
 

8) Do you support the right for people to act as they wish in a private setting, with other consenting adults?

Yes.  Activity between informed, consenting adults should always be outside the competence of the government to second guess.  (I'm assuming they are not conspiring to commit a crime of violence or fraud, i.e. two criminals consenting to plan a bank robbery would not be OK.)

10 Points
 

9) In July 2000 the Police Dept. of Attleboro Massachusetts entered a private party without a search warrant. The party was not open to the public or in the business to make a profit. Any donations given were used to pay rent. When the police entered, they arrested two people. The first person who was arrested organized the event. The second person arrested was
arrested because she spanked her consenting adult partner with a wooden spoon. Do you support the actions of the Attleboro police as given in this example? Why?

I'm cautious about second guessing specific instances where I have only a summary to go on.  There are special circumstances where I would expect police to enter a private party without a warrant -- a shout of "help", for example.  And police may in some cases arrest people based on what they can figure out at the time -- watching one person hit another with a spoon might look a lot like assault to the average cop.  (I'm trying to think of a plausible set of circumstances where arresting the organizer could be justified, but I can't.)

Having said that, and working from the data given, no, those actions by the police don't seem reasonable at all.  I'm curious if charges were ever brought.  If it's all informed consenting adults, it's private, and it's not bothering the neighbors or scaring the horses, then there's no crime.

10 Points
 

10) Do you support equal immigration rights for partners of US residents, regardless of their sexuality / orientation and / or gender identity/expression?

Another area where marriage differs from private contracts.  In theory yes, absolutely, but I'd be wary of the ways this could be taken advantage of to circumvent immigration law.  I would support a gay couple, one American and one not, to live together peacefully in the US.  I would worry about a polyamory "marriage" that allowed one US citizen to "marry" several thousand foreign nationals at one time in a bid to bypass immigration.

10 Points
 

Do you have an additional statement to make that is not covered by this questionnaire? Use as much space as you wish.

I don't see what gay marriage has to do with the right of self defense.  It's an interesting and valid issue for political discussion, but in what way is it a Pink Pistols issue?  Just curious.

Thomas B. Cox   t.cox@verizon.net

Same-Gender marriage is not a self-defense issue.  The Pink Pistols advocate two things..

#1>  Gun Freedom.

#2>  Equal Rights for Everyone.

This is an Equal Rights question.