.jpg)
Courtesy Kathleen Thomas for United States Senate
Related Articles
-
IL US Senate Republican candidate Andy Martin answers gun rights questionnaire
-
Are there any true 'pro-gun' candidates in the Illinois Senate race?
-
Don't rely on 'mainstream press' to determine candidate positions on guns
-
Why should gun owners support Republicans in Illinois Senate race?
- Make politicians prove they support the Second Amendment
Background: We've been discussing Illinois' 2010 U.S. Senate race. As we've seen, while posturing themselves away from the issue, Democrat candidates are on record as supporting various "gun control" edicts. Likewise, Republican party front runner Mark Kirk has an anti-gun track record that's as bad as it gets, including sponsoring a federal ban on semiautomatic firearms.
Still, we're told there is hope from the GOP:
Kathleen Thomas, a historical researcher in Springfield, opposes any restrictions...GOP candidates Patrick Hughes, Hinsdale developer, and Andy Martin, a lawyer and talk-show host, also oppose a federal ban on assault weapons and emphasize their support of the right to keep and bear arms.
With that in mind, and noting the Martin and Thomas campaigns both have strong statements of support for the Second Amendment on their websites, I sent the three campaigns my Gun Rights Questionnaire. To date, Martin and Thomas have responded.
Here are the responses from Kathleen Thomas:
1. Do you believe that the Constitution is the "supreme law of the land" and that the Bill of Rights acknowledges our birthrights?
Yes, I believe the government should be strong enough to protect us and our rights and restrained enough not to do more than that. We inherently have rights and the government was created to protect them.
2. If so, should these rights be proactively protected from infringement by all levels of government, including city, county and state?
Yes
3. Please give some examples of gun laws you consider constitutional.
While some laws are constitutional, they might be totally senseless. The FOID card is a case in point. While this card allows someone to own a firearm, which is constitutional, it seems unethical to have a law which creates a database for law-abiding citizens. Micro-stamping ammo is another case. Anyone (especially criminals) can remove the micro-stamp. It is my understanding that the same is true for encoding firing pins on firearms. While gun-free zone laws are constitutional, they are rather senseless as psycopathic criminals can choose to commit their crimes in these places.
4. Please give some examples of gun laws you consider unconstitutional.
Any law that bans firearms from law-abiding citizens.
5. Does the right to bear arms include the right for any peaceable citizen to carry them concealed without a permit, as in Vermont?
I support concealed carry.
6. Do you believe that Americans have a right to own, use and carry weapons of military pattern, and will you use the prestige of elected office to publicly promote that right?
Yes
7. Do you support or oppose registration of weapons? Why?
I believe there is justification for the background check. Everything else...the waiting periods and all the other restrictions on concealed carry, gun locks, etc., are an infringement on our rights. I believe that criminals can obtain any firearm at any time, why would we want to limit them from the law-abiding citizen?
8. Do you support or oppose licensing requirements to own or carry firearms?
Oppose licensing of owners of rifles and shotguns or handguns and say yes for a permit to carry a handgun.
Why?
I oppose licensing because I think that a good background check is enough to own a firearm.
9. What specific gun laws will you work to get repealed?
Any that hinder the law abiding citizen from owning firearms.
9. What specific gun laws will you work to get repealed?
The Lautenberg Amendment. Or at least exclude certain individuals from the amendment. It is my understanding that the Lautenberg Act conflicts with some State Laws that are in effect that do not impose a statute under federal law, and or state laws preventing persons from owning a firearm, ammunition, or possessing of such items. It prevents those who have been convicted of domestic battery, whether a gun was involved or not, from working as security guards or private investigators for example.
10. If elected, will you back your words of support for firearms rights up with consistent actions? How?
I will, as I said, vote according to my belief in the constitution in general and the 2nd amendment specifically.
For more information: Click here to visit the Kathleen Thomas for United States Senate campaign website.
Comments
So far, so good. Best answers so far. My vote would be hers pending her answer to #3.
Sounds like a lot of "reasonable" restrictions are ok with her.
BTW, just how can anyone both vote according to their belief, and ALSO vote to please those they represent? This would suppose that her beliefs were in harmony with everyone she "represents." How can our "employees" do what we tell them to if we are giving them a hundred or more conflicting orders?
Just curious...
Realizing this is Illinois this maybe the best we can hope for in a candidate.
David has any other candidate from Illinois suggested they would support a repeal of any gun control laws?
For Kathleen to say she would support a repeal of Lautenberg to me is a big deal when you realize this is Illinois.
P.S. In Illinois candidates have learned not to rock the party leadership if they want campaign money or support from the leadership.
We had a pro-gun downstate democrat run for governor several years ago and the Chicago democrat machine supported the republican Ryan instead.
The Chicago machine will eat their own young to keep a pro-gunner out of office in Illinois
Illinois stinks!
"David has any other candidate from Illinois suggested they would support a repeal of any gun control laws?"--madashell
No--as I've written in this series, the dems and rep front runner Mark Kirk are gungrabbers, Andy Martin says he'll wait until he's in office to "see what's on the books" and then he'll tell us, and Patrick Hughes' campaign manager has not acknowledged two emails on this.
She sounds like she's walking the line. I'm sure she's saying what she has to. Sounds sincere, what's her record like?
David, I'm not sure if you've written about this before, but have you heard about HB 45 the Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sale Act of 2009? This sounds like a nightmare. It looks like it's stuck in commitee, but I'm not sure. You've asked before where the line in the sand is and this would be it for me. Any clarification on HB 45 would be appreciated. Thanks in advance.
Barrett
The people who say this may be the best Illinois can hope for may be right. But clearly she gave an intentionally misleading answer to #5, as evidenced by #8. This shows that she is not above telling you what you want to hear instead of what she really thinks. Given that, how credible are her other answers? For example, is she interested in relaxing Lautenberg only for constituents with work-related issues? That's not principle, it's just more patronage.
She seems intelligent and at least understands the various bills. Great responses from her- good luck Illinois sounds like you have some tough choices!
An unequivocal pro-Second Amendment position during the primary does not an Illinois Senator make.
I hate to be vulgar and pragmatic, but the political climate and public sentiment in the state are still overall anti-gun. We're working hard to change that and are making progress, but IL is one of the most hostile states in the union. Anyone seeking statewide office on a platform of repealing the GCA, turning IL from a no-issue into a no-need-to-issue state overnight, or abolishing the NFA will lose. As much as we'd love to cheer on someone like that, any such candidate would be unelectable in a general Illinois election.
The challenge then becomes sifting out the genuinely anti-gun candidates from those who will take our side when it's important but have to be coy and circumspect about it while they campaign.
The good citizens in IL are facing the same dilemma right now in preparation for the gubernatorial primary.
She sounds sincere. Hope she's not another Dem. in republican clothing. ie: Arnold S. who has to do exactly what the Kennedy's
tell him- - - or else.
M. Thompson, for the "pragmatic" among Illinois voters, I am showcasing three republican alternatives to Mark Kirk who are all better than he is on the Second Amendment by an order of magnitude. Now who in the Illinois gun advocacy community is pushing with all they've got to sideline Kirk? Pushing a little?
The primary is Feb. 2. It's getting a little late to start mobilizing and motivating gun owners. I'm wondering where the political leadership is, where the endorsements are, where the warnings are.
I'm hearing what can't be done. I'm not seeing anyone who *should* be leading talking about what *can* be done. Are the state groups really going to let the GOP get away with making it a choice between Mark Kirk and his democrat counterpart and tell their members that's the best we can expect? Who should gun owners be backing and opposing in this primary and why? Or is it a foregone conclusion Kirk is the best they can get, and they don't want to blow future access?
Well it would not be the first RINO in the land to turn anti-gun when elected but what other choices will the People's Republic have?
David, I'm not questioning the value of your approach, nor am I suggesting that Kirk is anything other than terrible. My remarks were merely intended to provide some context for Thomas's responses in light of some of the other comments here that expressed dissatisfaction with her apparent evasiveness and vagueness.
Yeah, I never meant to suggest otherwise, MT. But it's true--consider the "pragmatic" approach--something I'm not fond of, but I cede I'm in the minority. I understand some have criticisms against Martin, others say Thomas doesn't have a chance--the "pragmatic" choice would appear to be Hughes, who may be the best-funded and most seemingly centrist of the three--and one who will not, apparently, allow his gun positions to be defined and potentially used against him. If that is a reasonable analysis, where are the state gun orgs and the NRA? Why have they not been rallying their members against Kirk,if for no other reason than to provide an object lesson to Republicans?
Where is the leadership? And where are the gun owners demanding it?
And why wasn't an acceptable alternative being recruited, groomed, talked about and supported all this time...?
She seems like the most favoral candidate so far to my liking.
I feel Bill Brady is the best all around candidate for Gov. Southern Illinois is supporting him for numerous reasons & his gun views are without question. He will sign a concealed carry bill. His electability is growing down here by the day on his other issues & if every gun owner will unite & support him he will win over Kirk or Ryan.
Hmmm, she's against licensing, but for permits for handguns. Permits are government permission to exercise your rights. What does she not understand about that? Why would she advocate for that?
There's a danger to "pragmatic" voting. For years, Massachusetts gun owners helped re-elect Jane Swift, who (although she never introduced any pro-gun bills) publicly denounced a proposed state-level "AW ban" and generally voted pro-gun. Then the anti-gun acting governor asked her to be his running mate, and within a single day she was FOR more restrictive laws, including an "AW ban."
And then there was Kirsten Gillibrand. Enough said.
Guess what, guys -- politicians can be "pragmatic" too.
Let's not let something important get lost in our discussion over the principled vs. the practical. That would be the old saying about not letting the perfect become the enemy of the good. There are no perfect candidates because there simply are no perfect people. What is a Pro-2A voter to do when they are presented with a "C" candidate and a clear "F". Some would argue we should stay home. Many gun voters did that, for excellent reasons, when Bush 41 ran against Clinton and Perot. That turned out swell for us, didn't it?
The bottom line is that many candidates and elected officials are weasels. The say whatever they think we want to hear, then do what they want once in office. Listen to what they say, but more important, watch what they do! Make them all EARN our support. Reward, encourage, and recruit ones who do. Heck, can't find a perfect candidate? Run for office yourself!
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!