Kevin Patrick for House of Delegates

I recognize and support the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

I am a gun-owner, and avid shooter; a much better one thanks to the Appleseed Project (www.appleseedinfo.org)

Here are some of the things I would like to see change in WV on the matter of firearms: I would like to see strengthening of the State Preemption to include the State Capital and Dunbar, and drastic cuts in the Federal Firearms Laws (which we can nullify in the  State Legislature), working towards their elimination.  States have the right to pass those laws, the Feds do not.  I open-carry, and support any carry (OC or CC), and would seek reciprocity CCW-agreements with as many other States as possible, and to eliminate the licensing requirement for CC (Vermont Carry) within the State.  I would never seek to curtail a Citizen's right to protect self, family, property, and others. 

I would like to see a version of TN's and MN's Firearms Freedom Act.  The only reason the BATFE, or any alphabet agency, has been able to claim for their 'authority' to regulate firearms transfers is the Inter-state Commerce Clause.  The legislation that I would like to see, and if elected would introduce and push, would state that no Federal Agency has any authority to oversee or regulate a firearms sale by a WV'ian to a WV'ian.

The right to carry and own is tempered with the responsibility to do so in a respectful manner, and I do support hand-gun safety classes but I do not support their being mandated; any responsible gun-owner appreciates safety.  I would seek to lower the costs of carry-permits and handgun licenses. Personally, I do not believe a person needs permission to exercise their right to carry or own (the 2nd Amendment is good enough)), and I would work towards that eventuality.

I have taken the Gun Rights Examiner Questionnaire, and it can be found here.

There is very little controversy needed in the "interpreting" of the 2nd Amendment.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Luckily for us, the US Constitution was written in plain English, not the legalese of today's legislation.

There is not much room for interpretation with the words: "shall not be Infringed." It is very clear. Not only are firearms 'allowed' but the are "necessary." At the time of the writing of the 2A, gun ownership was a duty, not a luxury. The ultimate purpose of it is to protect against tyranny. A man with a weapon is a Citizen, without one he is a serf.  The Founders did not put in any qualifiers, 2A included the most advanced military weapons of the day.

To people who would say that only the government should have guns: I would ask you if those people have really been so responsible that you are willing to give them that power? This government has started illegal, unconstitutional, and immoral wars for the past 100 years, killed millions of people, and you think they deserve a monopoly on the use of force? I think not.  In the 20th Century alone 100 million people have been killed by their own governments...

The line "A well regulated Militia..." is not a restriction.  To me, it means that whatever weapons are available to the average soldier, at minimum, those should be available to the populace.  

The purpose of the right (not a privilege) is to be the last line of defense when all others have failed.  It's not about hunting or sport shooting; but to secure a free state:  resistance to tyranny.

There are four boxes which protect our Liberty: the soap-box, ballot-box, jury-box, and, as a last resort, the cartridge-box.  Let's work on those first three, so we don't need the last one.