Political Party: Libertarian
Office you are running for: State Board of Equalization [Seeking re-election]
State: California
County: Not Applicable. (Mostly, Los Angeles)
District: 4th
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 am a strong proponent of the "individual rights" theory of the Second Amendment. I believe that every American citizen has the right to keep and bear arms. Not just for individual self-defense, but for collective defense, for hunting, for target shooting, for the sheer joy of it (whether your own personal pleasure comes from shooting or from the admiration and appreciation of fine craftsmanship), etc.
I do acknowledge the necessity of limiting Second Amendment rights to preclude gun ownership by the insane, the incarcerated, and certain convicted felons. I also think that minors' possession and use of firearms are to be controlled by their parents/guardians.
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?
I am fervent in me desire to repeal (or have declared unconstitutional) the bulk of the present gun laws.
I do not approve of waiting periods for the acquisition of firearms, whether for the purpose of "cooling off" periods or background checks.
I am not greatly offended by the idea of a imposing the successful completion of a basic course of firearms' safety as a prerequisite to the purchase of a gun. But I would want to make sure that this could not be abused by the government to restrict firearm ownership.
I am not sure if I would fully support the implementation of Vermont's rule regarding concealed carry. Vermont allows concealed carry by everyone, without a license. I am inclined to require a license for concealed carry, because I want people carrying concealed weapons to have to undergo training (including the laws regarding self-defense, gun safety and proficiency, training at a shooting range.) In order to impose reasonable training requirements as a prerequisite to concealed carry, there does have to be some permitting process. The training should be administered independently (by the NRA, a state gun group, or some other independent organization) and should be kept from becoming a method of restricting permits. The CCW laws were originally designed to keep blacks from being able to carry guns, and the discretionary issuance laws are still used to discriminate, on racial, ethnic, and/or preference bases. The permits should be issued once certain clearly defined criteria are met; that is, I support "shall issue" instead of discretionary issue permit laws.
5 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
[ ] Other __________________________________
[X] All of the above
[ ] None of the above
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 do not support the banning of any firearms or ammunition.
10 Points
5) Do you believe that firearms and/or firearm owners should be registered? Which ones and why?
No, I do not support registration of weapons or owners.
Unfortunately, the list of conceal carry permits would be a partial registration of gun owners. As would a list of people who have taken the basic gun safety class I propose for purchasing a gun. But these lists would not disclose what guns or how many guns the person listed owned.
5 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?
Yes, I fully support equal rights.
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.
[X] None of the above.
Government has no role in defining a marriage. Leave it to the church.
[ ] Other________________________________________________________________
I have a philosophical problem with this question regarding marriage. My core belief would require me to say "None of the above. Government has no role in defining a marriage." Let marriage be a civil relationship between (among) two (or more) people, with or without the involvement of their religious group.
My philosophical purity runs into a brick wall, because the government has created special privileges for married couples. Until we can get the government to repeal these special privileges, this creates an equal rights issue. I do not know if we should extend the bad idea (government involvement in relationships) further by supporting gay marriages or group marriages, or if we should refuse to get the government further enmeshed in this area that government should never have invaded in the first place.
I do note that we are able to provide through private contracts, powers of attorney, health care powers, living trusts and similar legal documents, some of the benefits/protections that the gay community seeks through marriage. We would need to pursue this further, for example, to amend the adoption laws to allow a woman the right to adopt her partner's child born to the couple through artificial insemination. But as matters now stand, many of the horror stories (i.e., a man barred from his dying partner's hospital room by the family which is in denial) deal with situations that could have been avoided by the proper legal paperwork.
10 Points
8) Do you support the right for people to act as they wish in a private setting, with other consenting adults?
Yes
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 do not understand this. What was the basis for the police to enter a private party in the first place? What was the basis for arresting the sponsor of the party? What was the basis for arresting someone for a consensual spanking? I thought we were allowed to act as we wished in private with other consenting adults. Were the arrests upheld?
Were the police allowed to get away with this invasion of privacy, illegal entry, harassment, ...? Were they sued or disciplined for their conduct?
10 Points
10) Do you support equal immigration rights for partners of US residents,
regardless of their sexuality / orientation and / or gender
identity/expression?
The question refers to "US residents", not to "US citizens." The immigration policy can (and perhaps should) distinguish between the two. If a citizen wishes to bring in a partner, there should be no greater right than for a resident alien to bring in a partner.
This is one of the areas where "marriage" becomes an issue (see question 7), but it should not. I think it is legitimate to impose on the US citizen or resident certain conditions, regardless of marital status, orientation or gender identity. These could include the length of the relationship prior to the request to bring the non-resident into the States, certain financial guarantees to insure that the alien will not become a public charge, and other limits. But I do not see orientation or gender identity as being legitimate issues in this area.
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 am a long-time member of the National Rifle Association and the California Rifle And Pistol Association. I am a member of Jews For The Preservation Of Firearm Ownership, the North American Hunting Club, the Single Action Shooting Society and other gun organizations. I am an active participant in the sport of Cowboy Action Shooting. I have been characterized as a "gun nut".
I am also a strong defender of equal rights. I believe that women and other groups targeted with physical violence need to train with firearms for purposes of self-defense. I applauded when a radical group of Jews (the Jewish Defense League) began arming themselves and training, to defend our neighborhoods and religious institutions. I applauded when blacked armed themselves to defend against KKK attacks. I fully support the role of the Pink Pistols in advocating self-defense.
To repeat an over-worked phrase, God created men
Sam Colt made them equal.
Very truly yours,
Kenneth A. Weissman