Candidate's Questionnaire Page
Candidate's Name : Jim Vance
Political Party: Libertarian
Office you are running for: University of Colorado
Regent for District 6
(formerly candidate for Governor prior to Primary for reference)
State: Colorado
County: Arapahoe
District: US - 6; CO House - 26; CO Senate - 38
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 - conditionally. The condition being that in my opinion there is no
place whatsoever for a private citizen to own weapons of mass destruction
(bio-weapons, nuclear, atomic, numerous variations of missiles, etc). No
reasonable argument has ever been made that I've seen on how an individual
could utilize a weapon of mass destruction for self-defense, defense against
a hostile government, etc. that does not include violating the rights of
others who had no intention of being a part of a confrontational situation.
To violate and innocent bystanders or neighbor's rights in favor of
your own defense (in which utilizing weapons of mass destruction will typically
result in the death of the person trying to defend themselves) is unreasonable
and unacceptable. Therefore I cannot support the unlimited ownership of
weaponry because weapons of mass destruction do fall under this generalized
wording of "military" weapons.
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. Unfortunately the position I am running for is not really in a place
to affect firearms laws other than restrictions on the CU Campus system.
I cannot quote the exact laws restricting firearms laws on campus, so I
cannot say which would need to be eliminated precisely. However if the state
legislature can manage to get a CCW system put into place that is consistent
across the state - I would push for firearms restrictions to be lifted on
the CU Campus system so the CCW would be in effect on school grounds as well.
10 Points
[ ] 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
[ ] Other __________________________________
[X] All of the above
[ ] None of the above
10 Points
As stated in question #1 - I cannot support the private ownership of anything
that classifies as weapons of mass destruction or that by nature violates
the rights of others by the design of its use. Unfortunately question #1
leaves that sort of thing open as it reads now. Had you qualified it as
firearms specifically, I would have agreed completely. In the case of question
#4... I can answer simply -no.
10 Points
5) Do you believe that firearms and/or firearm owners should be registered?
Which ones and why?
No. We don't have to register other things we collect or things we use on
a limited use for a specific purpose (fishing rods, golf clubs, chainsaws...
or lets go into weaponry and say even swords, knives, etc.) for whatever
use we apply to them. Why be forced to register firearms? If anything they
are such a multi-purpose item why would you be forced to register them as
a WEAPON when they are, in effect, really designed as a self-defense mechanism
- even in war.
10 Points
ABSOLUTELY and WITHOUT HESITATION.
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)
[X] All of the above. Everyone
should have equal rights under the law.
[ ] None of the above. Government has no role in defining a
marriage. Leave it to the church.
[X] Other: I would rather have governmental recognition and therefore
(hopefully) it's PROTECTION of ALL OF THE ABOVE types of marriages than have
some religious organization have the power to define what a marriage is or
is not. That leaves too much opportunity for one religion to say that a
marriage from another organization is invalid and unrecognized. It would
allow too much opportunity in my opinion for this nation to slip further
down the slippery slope of religious influence in our lawmaking process.
10 Points
8) Do you support the right for people to act as they wish in a private setting,
with other consenting adults?
Absolutely as long as it is consenting and among adults (although what is
an adult and what isn't is a very gray line state to state).
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?
After receiving your additional input on the circumstances of this situation
I will have party without invitation or consent. There was no excuse to
execute a search or arrests of the premises. This sounds like another example
of the police entering a location and making arrests because someone somewhere
objected to BDSM fetishes among consenting adults, and the only way they
could cover their own butts was to trump up irrational charges as to why
they were there in the first place. THIS is a perfect example, to me, why
lawmakers should never be permitted to enact "morality" related laws. Who's
morality is correct over someone else's? What a consenting adult does in
the privacy of their own homes, or even legally appropriated real estate,
is the exclusive business of themselves and whoever they are doing whatever
with - as long as all parties are consenting.
10 Points
10) Do you support equal immigration rights for partners of US residents,
regardless of their sexuality / orientation and / or gender identity/expression?
Yes. So long as they are not trying to enter the country illegally, there
should be no reason everyone does not have equal protection as an opposite
sex marriage partner where one is a foreigner. Domestic partners are domestic
partners - it is a contractual agreement the same as an opposite sex marriage
and should be honored as such regardless of the sexual orientation or number
involved.
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'm sure I do but it's too early in the morning and too many things are running
through my head to think of anything lucent to say right now.
Thank you again for the opportunity to answer these
thought provoking questions.
Jim Vance
Libertarian Party of Colorado Publications Director
& 2002 Candidate for University of CO Regent for District 6