CAMPAIGN 2006: Arizona Democrats Speak Out

Would you vote for a Democratic candidate in the state primary without knowing where that candidate stands on health care?  The deficit?  Iraq?  The response to Hurricane Katrina?  Or your right to keep and bear arms?

Amendment II Democrats asked your Arizona Democratic candidates, and they're responding.  Don't go to the polls without learning where your candidates stand on the Second Amendment.  This section will expand as more candidates respond, so check back often!

IMPORTANT NOTICE: Arizona's Primary Election is on Tuesday, September 12, 2006.  Don't forget to vote!

QUESTION 1: Which, in your opinion, should assume the predominant role in enacting legislation governing the possession and use of firearms by law-abiding citizens?

QUESTION 1	Federal Government	States	Equal Responsibility
(AZ-1) Mike Caccioppoli	X

COMMENTS
Mike Caccioppoli: The current messy patchwork of firearms laws across the United States is both confusing to law-abiding citizens, and taken advantage of by criminals. While I am a strong proponent of states rights and local governance, I feel uniform firearms laws across the United States would be beneficial to law-abiding citizens and have a side effect of reducing "gun trafficking."

QUESTION 2: If elected, would you support legislation establishing a mandatory firearms safety class, including classroom assignments and an accuracy test on an appropriate firing range, for all prospective gun owners in the United States?

QUESTION 2	Yes	No	Undecided
(AZ-1) Mike Caccioppoli	X

COMMENTS
Mike Caccioppoli: I feel it is critical for prospective gun owners to be thoroughly educated in the safe operation, storage, and care of firearms, as well as the applicable firearms laws in their local area. This would be no different than driver education classes and road tests that are now required for driver licenses. Should such legislation be enacted, it would be important for the federal government to work closely with firearms training organizations across the country, such as the National Rifle Association, to facilitate conveniently-scheduled and affordable training options.

QUESTION 3: If elected, would you support legislation that would restrict or ban sales of semi-automatic firearms to law-abiding citizens?

QUESTION 3	Yes	No	Undecided
(AZ-1) Mike Caccioppoli		X

COMMENTS
Mike Caccioppoli: There are many legitimate purposes for semi-automatic firearms, such as target and competitive shooting, personal defense, law enforcement and security, and hunting. In addition, a restriction on semi-automatic firearms would not really accomplish anything, as a skilled shooter can manually operate a revolver or bolt-action rifle just as fast as a semi-automatic. Such "warm and fuzzy," but meaningless, laws have not real effect on reducing gun crimes. This country already has very strong gun laws on the books that are not being enforced in their entirety. It is still illegal to commit a crime using a firearm - restricting the sales of semi-automatic firearms does nothing to enhance or diminish that fact. In addition, criminals have already proven themselves as willing law breakers - can one really expect them to follow laws restricting the possession or sales of semi-automatic weapons?

QUESTION 4: If elected, would you support legislation requiring law-abiding citizens to obtain a Federal permit in order to own a firearm?

QUESTION 4	Yes	No	Undecided
(AZ-1) Mike Caccioppoli		X

COMMENTS
Mike Caccioppoli: While I am supportive of the existing federal NICS background checks, I feel a federal permit for all gun owners is a violation of privacy and an individual's Second Amendment rights. The Second Amendment contains no language specifying that a federal permit is required.

QUESTION 5: Pertaining to the Federal permit mentioned in Question 4, what firearms should be covered under such a permit? (Multiple selections are permitted)

QUESTION 5	No Federal permit	All handguns	All rifles and shotguns	Semi-automatics only	Certain calibers only	All firearms
(AZ-1) Mike Caccioppoli	X

COMMENTS
None to report.

QUESTION 6: If elected, would you support legislation that would outlaw private ownership of .50-caliber rifles?

QUESTION 6	Yes	No	Restrict to NFA	Undecided
(AZ-1) Mike Caccioppoli		X

COMMENTS
Mike Caccioppoli: I feel existing laws and background check procedures are sufficient to keep such firearms out of the hands of criminals. Thus far, I have not heard of any criminal misuse of such firearms, nor do I think such a weapon would become the criminal's firearm of choice, particularly because of the size, weight, and exorbitant cost of both the weapon and the ammunition.

QUESTION 7: In your opinion, how do you feel about the current level of Federal legislation protecting citizens from unscrupulous, unsafe, and/or irresponsible firearms manufacturers?

QUESTION 7	We need more	We need less	It's just right	Undecided
(AZ-1) Mike Caccioppoli			X

COMMENTS
Mike Caccioppoli: I fully support the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act that recently passed and was enacted in to law. While I am hesitant to have the government involved in such a way in private business matters, I also feel many local governments, such as the City of New York, were trying to make political hay for themselves by suing responsible gun manufacturers and distributors without just cause. The lawsuits against gun manufacturers were getting out-of-hand and being used to drive the industry out-of-business. Suing Glock for criminal misuse of their firearms is no different that suing General Motors for the criminal misuse of their vehicles. It just does not make sense. I do, however, still think crime victims should have the right to sue gun manufacturers and distributors if the manufacturer or distributor acted outside the law and outside the best practices of ethical business.

QUESTION 8: In your opinion, how do you feel about the current level of Federal legislation protecting children from gun-related violence in public schools?

QUESTION 8	We need more	We need less	It's just right	Undecided
(AZ-1) Mike Caccioppoli				X

COMMENTS
Mike Caccioppoli: I have very mixed feelings on this topic. While I am a strong proponent of protecting our children, I also feel the current federal laws that establish the "Gun-Free School Zone" are unrealistic and unenforceable. I would support a re-drafting of this law to make it more effective in preventing school violence, while removing restrictions on possession of a firearm within the 1,000-foot radius. I think it should continue to be illegal for students to possess firearms on school grounds, while allowing very limited exceptions for recognized and sponsored school events and clubs.

QUESTION 9: What is your personal opinion about proposed "shoot first" laws like the one enacted in the State of Florida in 2005?

QUESTION 9	They increase crime	They decrease crime	No effect	Undecided
(AZ-1) Mike Caccioppoli		X

COMMENTS
Mike Caccioppoli: I think such laws will cause most criminals to think twice before preying on innocent, law-abiding citizens. The citizens of Florida have proven that there will not be "blood in the streets," as many anti-Second Amendment organizations have predicted. Similar predictions were made many years ago when concealed weapon laws started to be passed around the nation, yet their predictions never came anywhere close to fruition. Many states, such as my home state of Arizona, have had similar language on the books for years, with no problems to report.

QUESTION 10: Provided that the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) is preserved in its entirety, if elected, would you support lifting Federal bans on the manufacture of NFA firearms (machine guns, revolving cylinder shotguns, etc.) for the civilian market, and would you support lifting Federal bans on sales of NFA firearms to law-abiding citizens who meet the stringent requirements of the NFA?

QUESTION 10	Yes	No	Undecided
(AZ-1) Mike Caccioppoli			X

COMMENTS
Mike Caccioppoli: I feel that such a proposal would require much more research and consultation with concerned parties than is available to me as a Congressional candidate. While I would be willing to take such a matter under consideration with an open mind, I would need to have more information available to me before I would be prepared to take a firm position on this matter.

QUESTION 11: Are you in favor of Federal legislation that prohibits individuals who are convicted of domestic violence (including misdemeanor charges) from possessing firearms?

QUESTION 11	Yes	No	Undecided
(AZ-1) Mike Caccioppoli	X

COMMENTS
Mike Caccioppoli: Domestic violence offenders have already proven they are violent individuals and have the propensity for further violence. I firmly support existing laws that prohibit individuals subject to a restraining order from possessing firearms, and would further support a federal law that would prohibit domestic violence offenders from possession. Keeping in mind that individuals are capable of change with proper counseling and support, however, I would prefer to see a time limit on any such restrictions (i.e. prohibition lifted from an offender following a set time period with no further offenses).

QUESTION 12: Are you in favor of Federal legislation that prohibits individuals who are charged with domestic violence (including misdemeanor charges) from possessing firearms unless or until they are found not guilty in a court of law?

QUESTION 12	Yes	No	Undecided
(AZ-1) Mike Caccioppoli	X

COMMENTS
Mike Caccioppoli: While I am a firm believer in the concept of "innocent until proven guilty," I also fee the victims of domestic violence need a reasonable level of protection while their case is being adjudicated. Allowing a violent domestic violence offender to possess his or her firearms prior to conviction is providing them with ample opportunity to escalate the level of violence against the victim, up to and including homicide. I would, however, be supportive of providing a separate, administrative forfeiture or seizure review process, whereby a firearms owner could appeal the seizure of their firearms prior to trial.

QUESTION 13: Are you in favor of Federal legislation that prohibits individuals who have been convicted of misdemeanor possession of illegal drugs from possessing firearms?

QUESTION 13	Yes	No	Undecided
(AZ-1) Mike Caccioppoli	X

COMMENTS
Mike Caccioppoli: Illegal drugs and firearms do not mix, period. I would, however, support a time limit on such restrictions so long as the citizen did not re-offend.

QUESTION 14: Are you in favor of Federal legislation that prohibits individuals who have been charged with misdemeanor possession of illegal drugs from possessing firearms unless or until they are found not guilty in a court of law?

QUESTION 14	Yes	No	Undecided
(AZ-1) Mike Caccioppoli	X

COMMENTS
Mike Caccioppoli: Illegal drugs and firearms do not mix, period. I would, however, support a time limit on such restrictions so long as the citizen did not re-offend.

QUESTION 15 (Last question): In your opinion, did the Founding Fathers intend the Second Amendment to guarantee an individual right to bear arms or a collective right (National Guard, state militias, etc.), or both?

QUESTION 15	Individual right	Collective right	Both
(AZ-1) Mike Caccioppoli			X

COMMENTS
Mike Caccioppoli: I think the language of the Second Amendment is quite clear:

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.

The phrase regarding "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is stated in the Second Amendment as a separate and distinct thought, as evidenced by the style of writing used, including punctuation. I feel the Second Amendment is under attack in some locales and I would be a strong supporter of traditional, yet modernly reasonable, interpretation of the Second Amendment.