(CLICK HERE for this CQ as an MSWord file.)


United States Senate
(MUST be returned by 5PM, March 27, 2020 (Received here) for any candidate with a Primary challenge)

1.  RKBA standard of review.  In his majority Opinion for the USSC in D.C. v. Heller, Justice Scalia settled that the Second Amendment reserves and secures an individual right.  In that Opinion, Justice Scalia also declared that this right the people have reserved to themselves is a fundamental right, and because of that a rational basis will no longer suffice as a standard of review for governmental curtailment of this right.  Scalia left open what standard should apply.  Some argue that the proper standard of review for the right to keep and bear arms (RKBA) is contained within the Second Amendment itself, "shall not be infringed."  Do you agree that this qualifying clause should be looked to in determining an appropriate threshold, a judicial standard of review for government curtailment of this fundamental right?
(  ) Agree
(  ) Disagree
(  ) Other (please explain)

2.  Strength of RKBA prohibition asserted.  Some argue that the restraint on government curtailment of the RKBA found in the Second Amendment's "shall not be infringed" (as with the "shall not be called in question" in the Montana Constitution) is the strongest language of prohibition the drafters could conceive and use while still maintaining decorum and appropriate phraseology of constitutional language.  Do you:
(  ) Agree
(  ) Disagree
(  ) Other (please explain)

3.  RKBA outside one's homeD.C. v. Heller held that a person has a fundamental right to keep a firearm in a person's home, but did not address issues about firearms outside of a person's home, that is, the right to "bear" arms.  However, a U.S. district court judge in Maryland recently addressed this in Woollard v. Sheridan when he said, "In addition to self-defense, the right was also understood to allow for militia membership and hunting. See [Heller]. To secure these rights, the Second Amendment‘s protections must extend beyond the home: neither hunting nor militia training is a household activity, and ―'self-defense has to take place wherever [a] person happens to be.'  [Masciandaro]"  Do you agree that the rights reserved by the Second Amendment extend outside of a person's home?
(  ) Agree
(  ) Disagree
(  ) Other (please explain)

4.  Gun laws generally.  It is said that U.S. has among the least restrictive gun laws in the World.  Do you believe U.S. gun laws:
(  ) Are a lot too lenient and few and need to be seriously strengthened.
(  ) Are just a bit too loose and need some tweaking.
(  ) Are just about right and ought to be left alone.
(  ) Are still too restrictive and should be relaxed.
(  ) Other (please explain)

5.  Prior restraint.  Prior restraint describes both a governmental action, and a doctrine that has evolved concerning First Amendment intrusions by governmental entities. In short, the doctrine holds that government entities may not prevent in advance the exercise of a constitutionally-reserved right, but before resorting to any final course of prior restraint (with narrow exceptions) a governmental entity must either avail itself of all alternate remedies (e.g., sequestering a jury), or must rely upon punishing afterwards any abuse of rights.  If prior restraint is allowed at all, it must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government purpose.  Do you think the concept of limiting prior restraint of a fundamental right should also apply to the fundamental rights reserved under the Second Amendment?
(  ) Yes
(  ) No
(  ) Other (please explain)

6.  Constitutional conflict resolution.  There is an ancient principle of law that if there is a conflict between two provisions of a co-equal body of law, the most recently enacted must be given deference as the most recent expression of the enacting authority.  Without this principle, no law, once enacted, could be amended or even repealed.  Many alleged federal intrusions into the rights of states and of people of the states are done under the assumed authority of the Interstate Commerce Clause, buttressed by the Supremacy Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause.  However, the Interstate Commerce Clause, the Supremacy clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause were ALL amended by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments - the Ninth and Tenth Amendments actually affected and changed - amended - all parts of the underlying Constitution, and that congressional power asserted under the Interstate Commerce Clause must fail if that power is in conflict with either the Ninth or Tenth amendment.  Do you:
(  ) Agree
(  ) Disagree
(  ) Other (please explain)

7.  Remedies for federal/state conflicts.  When there are conflicts between what a state wishes to do and what the federal government wishes to impose upon a state, there are a variety of remedies available.  A state, for example, may pass a resolution protesting against a federal mandate or incursion.  Or, a state may ask its congressional delegation to introduce and enact legislation to address or moderate the conflict.  One commonly-understood remedy is for a state to sue the federal government in federal court, asking that the judicial branch of the federal government restrain the executive and legislative branches of the federal government.  While that may sometimes be a fruitful remedy, some observers express concern that lawsuits in federal court are inadequate as an ultimate remedy for federal/state conflicts, because that remedy depends upon a subset (federal courts) of one party (federal government) to a conflict to resolve a conflict with the other party (a state) to the conflict.  This may leave the party who's subset is not deciding the outcome (a state) at a distinct disadvantage.  About this concern, do you:
(  ) Agree
(  ) Disagree
(  ) Other (please explain)

8.  Contract for statehood - effect.  Article I of the Montana Constitution is the Compact with the United States.  That Compact is a contract entered into by and between Montana and the other states in 1889, wherein Congress was acting as the agent for the other states.  This contract declares that it is not subject to amendment without such change being ratified by the parties to the contract, and that Montana and its people are also guaranteed by contract a view of the Montana and U.S. Constitutions as they were understood and accepted in 1889, at the time the contract was agreed upon.  Do you agree with this view, or do you view the terms of this contract as having become changed over time, without overt ratification, but by the flow of time, events, case law evolution, changing judicial philosophies, and/or enactment of laws by Congress that effect changes in the original conditions of the contract?
(  ) I agree that contract law binds the U.S. and Montana to an understanding of terms and conditions that existed when the contract was entered into.
(  ) I disagree because the contract or circumstances have changed
(  ) Other (please explain)

9.  Who a U.S. Senator represents.  Some Senators believe that, once elected, a U.S. Senator should attempt to represent all of the people and interests of the United States to the best of his or her ability, even if that may conflict with the interests of the people of the state from which the Senator is elected.  Others believe that they have a duty to represent the people of the state which elected them, as far as that is possible, even if that conflicts with the interests or needs of people of other states.  Others may believe that as U.S. Senator they can be most effective by advancing the programs and interests of the United States government.  Do you believe a U.S. Senator should:
(  ) Represent all of the people of the U.S.
(  ) Represent the people and state which elected him or her.
(  ) Advance the interests of the U.S. government as best for all
(  ) Other (please explain)

10.  Oath of office.  A U.S. Senator, to be seated, must take the following oath of office:  "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."  Do you think this oath is:
(  ) An absolute solemn and binding promise.
(  ) A general guideline.
(  ) Just a formality.
(  ) Can't really apply because constitutional issues are too complex.
(  ) Other (please explain)

11.  Voting on large (or any) bills unavailable to read.  Sometimes members of the Senate are asked to vote on large and complex bills, often prepared by the executive branch and sometimes running hundreds or thousands of pages, to which senators have not had access, and which senators have not been able to read and study.  Two examples are the Patriot Act and the Affordable Care Act.  Sometimes such bills contain surprise provisions that senators would not favor had the bill been available with adequate time to review.  About voting on bills that have not been available to senators to study, do you believe:
(  ) Sometimes the crush of business is just so great that we must vote on bills we haven't been able to read.
(  ) That is just the way things work in the Senate.
(  ) A senator should always vote against a bill that has not been available to study.
(  ) Once a bill has passed a committee, it is safe to assume it is properly vetted.
(  ) Senators must trust the executive branch to prepare workable bills.
(  ) People should just wait for bills to be passed to learn what's in them.
(  ) Senators can trust their party leaders to tell them which bills are good or bad.
(  ) Other

12.  Lautenberg repeal.  In 1996, Congress enacted a gun ban known as the Lautenberg Misdemeanor Gun Ban.  Because this ban covers misdemeanors, it disarms otherwise law-abiding citizens for life – for offenses as slight as spanking a child or grabbing a spouse’s wrist.  Do you support a repeal of the Lautenberg Misdemeanor Gun Ban?
(  ) Yes
(  ) No
(  ) Other (please explain)

13.  Judging the Constitution.  It has long been assumed by most that only the U.S. Supreme Court may determine the powers the states have delegated to the federal government under the Constitution.  However, the principle also exists that the servant may not judge the powers given to him by his master, or that an agent may not judge the powers given to him by his principal.  By this standard, only the states may properly define the powers they have delegated to the federal government when they created it with the Constitution, and that no branch of the federal government, including the judicial branch, may properly or ultimately make that decision.  What do you believe?
(  ) By tested tradition, only the Supreme Court may rule on the U.S. Constitution.
(  ) For the states to make such decisions would just be unworkable.
(  ) The states have reserved sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to determine what powers they have delegated to the federal government in the Constitution.
(  ) Because the states created the Constitution and the federal government, only the states may determine what powers they delegated.
(  ) Other (please explain)

14.  "Gun free" zones.  Some people believe that if we declare some places to be "gun free zones" that criminals will learn about and obey such policies, and that will make everyone in such places safer.  Others believe that persons with criminal intent don't obey laws and policies and that persons with criminal intent won't heed laws and policies creating "gun free zones."  What do you believe?
(  ) Yes.  Gun free zones are necessary and make everyone safer.
(  ) Maybe gun free zones will work, or at least show we are trying to do something to curb senseless violence.
(  ) I don't really understand this issue.
(  ) No.  Gun free zones only disarm law-abiding people, creating safe places for criminals to operate and pools of defenseless victims.
(  ) Other (please explain)

15.  Firearm and equipment bans.  It is argued by some that certain types of firearms or firearm accessories are just too potentially dangerous to be allowed, other than for government officials such as military or police.  These arms or accessories may allow a person to shoot more accurately over a long distance, fire more bullets in a short period of time, conceal a firearm from public view more easily, fire more high-velocity bullets, fire slow bullets that don't create a sonic boom, fire larger bullets, carry more ammunition because of smaller cartridges, or buy and possess more firearms because they're inexpensive.  Others argue that what matters is the intent of a person using a firearm or firearm accessory, and not the tool the person employs.  What do you believe?
(  ) Certain types of firearms and accessories are just too dangerous and must be banned for non-government users.
(  ) Only government employees can be trusted to possess certain dangerous firearms or firearm accessories.
(  ) Preventing lawful people from buying such firearms or accessories will at least limit the number of those available for criminal misuse.
(  ) We must start somewhere to curb rampant violence, and banning certain firearms and accessories would be a good place to start.
(  )  Even on island nations banning firearms or accessories doesn't work and it won't accomplish anything useful here.
(  )  When the people formed and empowered our governments, they wrote into the charters that government entities are delegated no power to enforce any such bans.
(  ) Other (please explain)

16.  Firearm suppressors.  Permanent hearing loss is a huge problem for firearms enthusiasts.  While people who shoot a lot habitually use some form of hearing protection, that only helps, but does not eliminate, the problem of gradual, incremental hearing loss from shooting.  That's why some people prefer to use firearm suppressors for shooting.  Unlike the Hollywood portrayal, a suppressor does not "silence" a firearm.  It only reduces the muzzle blast, just one component of the sound a firearm discharge makes.  A Suppressor can do nothing to diminish the sonic boom created by a supersonic bullet going downrange.  Still, a firearm suppressor, when used in conjunction with standard hearing protection, does reduce the sound impact on a shooter enough to prevent gradual, permanent hearing damage.  However, the incorrect lore persists that suppressors totally silence firearms, and that they are commonly used by criminals.  Because federal law heavily regulates suppressors, they are very difficult and expensive to acquire.  Just getting the required paperwork assembled, mailed, and approved may take as much as a year.  Your position is:
(  ) Suppressors are not needed for hunting, so current regulation should be maintained.
(  ) Suppressors are illegal to curb crime, and that's essential.
(  ) The $200 tax on each suppressor funds important government programs.
(  ) Suppressors should be treated legally like other firearm accessories, such as scopes, slings, or bipods.
(  ) Mufflers should be taken off hunting vehicles to help catch poachers.
(  ) Other (please explain)

17. "Red flag" laws.  Some states have considered or adopted a type of law that has come to be called a "red flag" law, or in some cases a Risk Protection Order (RPO).  They have also been proposed at the federal level. Proponents allege these laws make people safer by allowing police to take people's guns if there is an allegation that such persons might be dangerous to themselves or others. Despite possibly good intentions of proponents, such laws have serious constitutional and practical problems.  The constitutional problems include lack of due process and violation of property rights and the right to keep or bear arms.  Some practical problems include that such a policy fails its intended goal because it leaves an allegedly dangerous person free to find another way to commit the predicted mayhem.  An RPO bill was introduced unsuccessfully in the 2019 Legislature and will probably be introduced again in 2021.  About such a bill, would you:

(  ) Support
(  ) Be neutral
(  ) Oppose

The foregoing responses are actually my positions on these issues, to the best of my knowledge and at this time.

Candidate Signature    (electronic signature accepted)


Printed Name, Candidate for the United States Senate