Related Articles
Another candidate for the Nevada senate seat currently occupied by Harry Reid has responded to the gun rights questionnaire, Terry Suominen.
Here is his reply:
I am sending you my response to your questionnaire with the answers in capital letter form with each question.
Gun laws are of great interest around this country and do bring up much heated debates. I have answered each question based on my belief, with that said I also addressed the Constitutionality of the right to bear arms as stipulated in each question where needed.
1. Do you believe that the Constitution is the "supreme law of the land" and that the Bill of Rights acknowledges our birthrights?
TS: YES
2. If so, should these rights be proactively protected from infringement by all levels of government, including city, county and state?
TS: YES, WITH EXCEPTIONS THAT I WILL ADDRESS IN EACH OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS.
3. Please give some examples of gun laws you consider constitutional.
TS: MY PERSONAL BELIEF IS THAT ASSAULT RIFLES SHOULD BE REGULATED. I AGREE THAT FELONS AND MENTALLY INCOMPETENT INDIVIDUALS ARE EXEMPT FROM THE SECOND AMENDMENT AS THE SUPREME COURT HAS RULED AND I AGREE THAT ONE SHOULD HAVE TO APPLY FOR A PERMIT TO CARRY A CONCEALED WEAPON. ALSO I BELIEVE IN THE SAFE ZONES AROUND SCHOOLS.
4. Please give some examples of gun laws you consider unconstitutional.
TS: LAWS THAT TAKE AWAY CITIZENS RIGHT (AS IN WASHINGTON DC) TO BEAR ARMS WHO DO NOT FIT THE CRITERIA OF THE FELON OR THE METALLY INCOMPETENT. ANY LAW THAT TAKES AWAY THE CITIZENS RIGHT TO DEFEND THEMSELVES IN THEIR HOME WITH A FIREARM.
5. Does the right to bear arms include the right for any peaceable citizen to carry them concealed without a permit, as in Vermont?
TS: MY BELIEF IS THAT WE HAVE A RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, WITH STATES GIVEN THE RIGHT TO LEGISLATE WHETHER OR NOT TO REQUIRE REGISTRATION OF FIREARMS TO BE CONCEALED.
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?
TS: I BELIEVE THAT ASSAULT WEAPONS OR THOSE USED FOR MILITARY PURPOSES SHOULD BE REGULATED. AS A SENATOR I WILL PURSUE THE WILL OF MY CONSTITUENTS ON ALL MATTERS.
7. Do you support or oppose registration of weapons? Why?
TS: I SUPPORT THE REGISTRATION OF WEAPONS. THIS IS ONE SAFEGUARD THAT ULTIMATELY COULD PREVENT INDIVIDUALS FROM BUYING GUNS THAT HAVE LOST THEIR RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.
8. Do you support or oppose licensing requirements to own or carry firearms? Why?
TS: I BELIEVE THAT YOU SHOULD NOT NEED TO BE LICENSED TO CARRY A FIREARM UNLESS YOU CONCEAL IT. IF YOU CHOOSE TO CARRY A CONCEALED WEAPON YOU SHOULD BE LICENSED, AGAIN SO THAT THE STATE KNOWS THE INDIVIDUAL DID NOT LOSE THEIR RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.
9. What specific gun laws will you work to get repealed?
TS: CURRENTLY MY EFFORTS WOULD BE ON PRESENTING A BALANCED BUDBET AMENDMENT, REDUCING THE SIZE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND REDUCE THE NATIONAL DEBT. IF THERE IS A LAW THAT NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT AND REPEALED BECAUSE THE CONSTITUENTS OF NEVADA SHOW A DESIRE I WOULD NOT HESITATE TO LOOK INTO THAT SPECIFIC LAW TO FIGHT FOR WHAT THEY BELIEVE IN.
10. If elected, will you back your words of support for firearms rights up with consistent actions? How?
TS: I WILL BACK UP MY WORDS WITH ACTION. IF A BILL IS PRESENTED THAT THREATENS TO TAKE AWAY OUR RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, I WILL FIGHT IT. IF THE CONSTITUENTS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA HAVE ISSUE WITH CURRENT LAWS I WILL LOOK INTO THE LAWS AND IF NEED BE PRESENT A BILL TO ADDRESS THE WISHES OF NEVADANS.
Mr. Codrea I have answered each question with great thought and concern. Let me end by saying that as Senator of the Great State of Nevada I will fight for the wishes of the citizens that elected me regardless of my position on the issue. I will be the voice of the people who ultimately elected me to go to Washington and fight for what they believe.
If my views are in opposition to theirs I will have to in good faith stand by the majority and vote the conscience of the people. The office of the Senate is about We the people. That is my pledge.
Respectfully,
Terry Suominen
Learn more about Terry Suominen from his campaign website.
------------
Revisiting the Illinois State Police
Chicago Gun rights Examiner Don Gwinn writes an open letter to the director.
Regular readers will recall we challenged the notion that the best self-defense advice was to vomit, surrender or scream...
Comments
Oh, joy. Another politician who, presuming the guilt of gun owners in advance, demands registration so we can "prove" we aren't really criminals. Another idiot politician who can't differentiate between imaginary "assault _weapons_" and assault rifles, but is sure they need to be regulated. A fool who thinks my "registered" handgun is okay worn on my belt, but if I put on a coat over it, I have to prove in advance that I'm not a criminal. Another seeming criminal who likes designated victim disarmament zones. A liar who, when asked a specific question about repealing unconstitutional firearms laws, tries to shift the subject to a new topic beyond the scope of the questionnaire.
Mr.Suominen, violent felons like gun control because it renders victims harmless. If you are not a violent criminal, would you care to explain why you side with them?
Next applicant, please.
Epic fail. Talks about pizza dough, working as a stockboy, etc, while in school, blah, blah, blah. To put all those details out is unprofessinal, and doesn't address where his integrity,strength, and loyalties lie. If he doesn't have a history in politics, fine. People want to hear about positions, how long, and how strong. And not the most flattering photo, either.
Ah, the "will of the majority."
I wonder... if all of your neighbors took a "vote" and THE MAJORITY decided that YOUR house should be burned... would that be ok with you? After all, it is the WILL OF THE MAJORITY.
Sorry about the caps, David. He started it. [smile]
terry's first mistake would be believing that assault rifles are not regulated.
terry's second mistake is believing that there exist weapons which were not originally designed for military purposes and could not still be used for military purposes.
both of these are beliefs are false.
terry's third mistake, unless he is not a man of faith, is passing judgement on convicted felons. but, a politician is a politician. you can't have everything.
Where do these folks get the idea that the state has rights?
We The People are supposed to have RIGHTS. The state should only have DUTIES!
Just another typical politician. Why should I have to prove to anyone I'm not a criminal. The only reason to register guns if for later confiscation. A-holes like this are the reason the country is as screwed up as it is.
He might have been better off not answering.
I especially like this part:
"I AGREE THAT FELONS AND MENTALLY INCOMPETENT INDIVIDUALS ARE EXEMPT FROM THE SECOND AMENDMENT . . . "
Hmm--"exempt" from having rights. Now I've heard everything.
In re question # 8... Mr. Suominen (hope he never becomes Senator) seems to hint at being *for* permitless open carry -- as the flip side of requiring registration for concealed carry (CC). He explains his position on CC in terms of "SO THAT THE STATE KNOWS THE INDIVIDUAL DID NOT LOSE THEIR RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS." How would the state know that an open-carrying individual did not lose his/her right to bear arms? Unless he believes that the act of open-carrying would be RS/RAS/PC for police (state) contact in order to ascertain this...
Strike three! Yerrrout!
Hang the traitor.....period.
What part of "Shall Not Be Infringed" does this ass clown not understand?
Bob
III
So, he LIED when he answered question #1. Good to know.
HS: I BELIEVE THAT YOU SHOULD NOT NEED TO BE LICENSED TO CARRY A FIREARM UNLESS YOU CONCEAL IT. IF YOU CHOOSE TO CARRY A CONCEALED WEAPON YOU SHOULD BE LICENSED, AGAIN SO THAT THE STATE KNOWS THE INDIVIDUAL DID NOT LOSE THEIR RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.
FAILURE! In this excerpt Terry Suominen displays alarming ignornace about the basic legal understanding of "carry" vs. "transport" of a firearm. To "carry" means that the weapon is physically on your body. I presume Terry believes it's ok to open carry without a permit as opposed to concealed carry. That is 100% backward logic IMO.
Also, it's ok to open carry if you've lost your 2nd Amendment right, but somehow if you carry concealed your 2nd Amendment right must be intact?!?! That's the most circuitous and inversed philosophy I've heard in some time.
Terry might want to do some homework on the issue before he forms an opinon opposing it, but somehow I don't think it would help much.
Mr. Codrea you are doing a great justice for every gun owner. I want to to see more of this. In fact I think we must see what every active candidite seeking an elected seat has to say about the 2nd amendment guns & CCW etc. Thanks again & I express a desire of your fellow cohorts continue your lead. TenRinger
He doesn't seem to be too interested in winning, because I got a 'Bandwidth exceeded' error trying to access his campaign site.
pm
Dance dance dance sign him up for dancing with the stars. He is not one of us.
"MY PERSONAL BELIEF IS THAT ASSAULT RIFLES SHOULD BE REGULATED"
I have to say I agree with him here, as long as we restrict the definition to 2, 3 and 4:
1. to control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.: to regulate household expenses.
2. to adjust to some standard or requirement, as amount, degree, etc.: to regulate the temperature.
3. to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation: to regulate a watch.
4. to put in good order: to regulate the digestion
And where he says "ALSO I BELIEVE IN THE SAFE ZONES AROUND SCHOOLS" again I must agree, school zones *should* be safe, so anyone 'not scrupulous of bearing arms' should be required to carry when within 1,000 yards of any school (public or private), any playground, park or schoolbus stop. Okay, maybe not *required* to carry, but you get the idea . . .
On the plus side: Well, now we know. That's better than before.
On the prurient side: I couldn't help giggling at noticing, as he Tells Us How It Will Be in the form of little rules, that his initials are TS. (Yeah, I know, that's juvenile. So is misreading the Constitution/BoR.)
In case Suominen reads this and is willing to listen:
- Rights do not have exceptions. That is what makes them rights. If you do not have the right to defend your life, by any means and at any time, you do not own your life--someone else does.
- Pursuing the will of your constituents does not trump your oath of office. If your constituency voted 100% for you to go door-to-door and confiscate weapons, would you do it?
- Forcing prior restraint on the peaceable (with the state's guns) is wrong--always wrong.
- Liberty is not about protecting people you agree with. It is about realizing that the only way to guarantee rights for yourself is to demand the same for those you hate.
Terry Suominen and Bruce Kraft,
In so far as #3 and "Assault Weapons" (note the questions never say that - military patterned firearms legally sold in the US are not ASSAULT WEAPONS):
They are already regulated, as are all guns currently as I have to assume the candidate is aware. So, in stating that they should be regulated, it infers, *in addition* to other firearms. Is this code for being Banned?
I'm just looking for clarification here, but if I had to, my guess is that he is alluding to Banning "assault weapons", as Terry Suominen says later to #6 "I BELIEVE THAT ASSAULT WEAPONS OR THOSE USED FOR MILITARY PURPOSES SHOULD BE REGULATED."
Lets assume at this point that the candidate knows that "weapons of military pattern" does not equal "assault weapons" and he wants to GUT the Second Amendment, regardless of what ever else he has to say.
His use of the phrase ASSAULT WEAPONS repeatedly in his response to these questions tells VOLUMES.
FAIL FAIL FAIL
Bruce Krafft:
Sorry - I lumped you in my response prematurely. You NO FAIL...
I can't add anything to what has already been said. But I do take particular offense to his call for "Free Fire Zones" for schools. Not to mention that since I live across the street from a school I have to believe that he thinks I don't have any rights. That's right TS, give up one right and you give up all your rights.
hand him high. He gets an F-
His answer to #3 contradicts his answer to #5.
If states need to register weapons in order to know felons are not carrying concealed, how is it that they can tell when felons are open carrying?
Conclusion: He's trying to parse his answers to conceal his real opinions or else he's a moron who can't follow a coherent line of thought.
Off-topic hijacking of thread deleted.
Mr. Terry Suominen, like most other politicians and people running for political office, does not know what that job entails. This is shown by his comment, "...as Senator of the Great State of Nevada I will fight for the wishes of the citizens that elected me regardless of my position on the issue. I will be the voice of the people who ultimately elected me to go to Washington and fight for what they believe."
There is one thing - and one thing only - that a person entering political office must do in order to enter that 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."
It has absolutely nothing to do with the wishes and
desires of his constituents, the people of Nevada - and everything to do with his promise to God.
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!