Dear Rep. Zwonitzer,
I was delighted to see your reply to my post regarding an Associated Press story that reported:
Rep. Dan Zwonitzer, R-Cheyenne, said he owns guns and enjoys shooting. However, he said Wyoming is among the top states in the country in terms of gun-related deaths by population and said the state doesn't need legislation to encourage more people to carry guns.I further reported that you were rated as an unknown by NRA-PVF for failure to answer your candidate questionnaire.
Zwonitzer quoted the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states in part that a "well-regulated militia" is necessary to the security of a free state. He said he wouldn't have a problem with the bill if it specified that members of the Wyoming National Guard have a right to carry weapons.
Your response indicates you have been unfairly portrayed.
I've been called a lot of things, but never a "moonbat".
I have in fact read the Federalist papers, at least three times.
When the heck did you guys start actually believing and relying on the Press for your information?
Also, I mailed in my NRA form, and it was lost somewhere along the way. I called the NRA multiple times, recieved no help in obtaining another copy, and was bounced around the country, until I was finally told it was too late to turn in my form.
Maybe you should contact legislators and get their actual viewpoint...
That seems fair--and I trust you have also contacted the AP and NRA to correct the record. Will you share with us what you did say that reporter Ben Neary apparently so horribly misconstrued? Do you oppose permitless concealed carry as was reported?
Rep. Zwonitzer, I've been searching for political representatives I can trust to champion my rights for many years now, with very little success. You have no idea how much I would love to be able to apologize to you, to tell people I misjudged you, to ask your forgiveness, and to endorse and financially contribute to your political career. Will you give me that chance?
You challenged us to contact you for your views, so that's what I'm doing. The following is a questionnaire I put together a while back designed to identify a political candidate's position regarding the Second Amendment. Can I count on you to give specific and unequivocal answers for each question?
1. Do you believe that the Constitution is the "supreme law of the land," that the Bill of Rights acknowledges the birthrights of all Americans, and that the Second Amendment was intended to protect the right of the people to keep and bear arms from being infringed?
2. If so, should these rights be proactively protected from infringement by all levels of government, including city, county and state? How?
3. Who are the Constitutional militia?
4. Please give some examples of gun control laws you consider do not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Please share as many as you can think of.
5. Please give some examples of gun control laws you consider unconstitutional.
6. Does the right to bear arms include the right for any peaceable citizen to carry them concealed without a permit, as in Vermont?
7. Do you believe that Americans have a right to own, use and carry weapons of military pattern?
8. Do you support or oppose registration of weapons? Why?
9. Do you support or oppose licensing requirements to own or carry firearms? Why?
10. What specific gun laws will you work to get repealed?
11. If elected, will you back your words of support for firearms rights up with consistent actions? How?
13. If brief clarification is requested for any of your answers, will you provide it?
Rep. Zwonitzer, I sincerely hope to be converted to a supporter.
Best wishes,
David Codrea
Rep. Dan Zwonitzer, "Maybe you should contact legislators and get their actual viewpoint..."
ReplyDeleteGun related deaths have NOTHING whatsoever to do with NEGATING a RIGHT! The point is that The Right to Keep and Bear Arms SHALL NOT be INFRINGED! Rep. Zwonitzer, WITNESS a statement made by the illustrious MR. OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES, JR.;
"...Again, a large part of the advantages enjoyed by one who has a RIGHT are NOT created by the law. The law does NOT enable me to USE or ABUSE this book which lies before me. That is a physical power which I have WITHOUT the aid of the law. What the law does is simply to PREVENT OTHER men to a greater or less extent from INTERFEREING with my USE or ABUSE. And this analysis and example APPLY to the case of POSSESSION, as well as to OWNERSHIP."
"Such being the DIRECT WORKING OF THE LAW IN THE CASE OF POSSESSION, one would think that the animus or intent most nearly parallel to its movement would be the intent of which we are in search. If what the law does is to EXCLUDE OTHERS FROM INTERFERING WITH THE OBJECT, it would seem that the intent which the law should require is an INTENT TO EXCLUDE OTHERS. I BELIEVE THAT SUCH AN INTENT IS ALL THAT COMMON LAW DEEMS NEEDFUL, and THAT ON PRINCIPLE NO MORE SHOULD BE REQUIRED." - The Common Law, Lecture VI, PARA. 27 Sentences 9-13
Am writing this in the hopes that Rep. Zwonitzer will read it and perhaps share it with his fellow representatives. You stated that you have read the Federalist Papers, at least three times. That is impressive and shows an actual desire to attempt to discover what our Founders Truly Intended for our form of government. Question for you, sir. Why has not the principles in the Federalist Papers then been applied? The Federalist was, after all, the means employed to 'sell' the idea of the new 'Constituted Federal Republic', was it not? Can it not be construed as being part and parcel of the Contract, (Constitution), between the government and the People? Why are states allowed to pass laws that are blatantly against the Constitution of The United States of America? Which is in plain disregard of the ideals found in the Federalist Papers and in the body of the Constitution as well. Why has The Supreme Court of The United States of America been allowed to shirk their DUTY and not enforced the precepts contained in the Federalist Papers?
Sir, I graduated High School, almost 10 years after I had walked away from it, by taking a G.E.D. course. And this because I knew that public institutions are NOT practising or teaching, for that matter, the REAL essentials that are necessary to a good life. Many of the institutions, of supposed higher learning, are actually subversive of our Founding Principles! Have read books avidly for most of my life. And, did not attend college. Yet in my course of studies, concerning the Federalist Papers, I was easily able to determine the EXACT meaning and INTENT of the Framers. If you so desire, I can directly point out where ALL forms of 'Gun Control' are BLATANTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL, whether on the Federal or State levels. I have devoted THOUSANDS of hours to study and research The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms. And I can back the claims I've made, sir, WITH INDISPUTABLE FACT! I can readily show how the states AND Federal governments are OPERATING OUTSIDE THE BOUNDS OF THE CONSTITUTION!
If your TRUE interest is to do your job RIGHTLY, as was INTENDED by the Framers. Then contact me and I can readily summarize THE INTENDED WAY for you! In FACT, go here and READ the RESEARCH; http://gunshowonthenet.com/. All crucial information is linked on the opening page. My conviction is so strong on this issue. That I have ENTIRELY devoted the last six months of my life to ensuring the information gets out.
My whole life, I've had the lurking, creepy feeling that something was just not quite right in our Country. I had read the Constitution, Bill of Rights and various other documents of Freedom. And, all that those documents informed me of was just how far and away our Nation was from those chosen ideals. And this, after almost 200 years, (at the time this first occured to me), of being set in motion. Had written about it earlier in my life, but came to the conclusion that my efforts were wasted. That nobody cared, and all that anybody really wanted was to see how fast they could get rich. That conclusion changed a little prior to the horrible event(s) of 9/11. It began to dawn on me just how sick and twisted our once great Nation had become. And I realized, that as a citizen and as a believer in Jesus Christ, that it was my DUTY to try and effect much needed change.
It is my firm CONVICTION, that if we do not change the present course this country is on. We will lose EVERYTHING that was fought so hard for! We are a mere shadow of what we should be in this country! The fault lies with the government AND the People. If we truly value Freedom, it would be wise for US ALL to return to following The Founding Principles of our Country! The Framers are not antiquated 'old fogies'. The methods they employed in determining the best mode of operation for our nation were well thought out and studied. They used historical data, psychological, moral and Spiritual reasoning. And their plan was NEVER given an honest trial! The perversion started almost immediately. It is up to us, if we value the Principles of Truth, to ensure those Principles are employed fully.
Thank you David for your invitation. While you may not fully agree with all of my responses, I appreciate the healthy difference of views that helps shape public policy for all citizens. In response:
ReplyDeleteDo you believe that the Constitution is the "supreme law of the land," that the Bill of Rights acknowledges the birthrights of all Americans, and that the Second Amendment was intended to protect the right of the people to keep and bear arms from being infringed?
Yes.
2. If so, should these rights be proactively protected from infringement by all levels of government, including city, county and state? How?
I’m unsure as how government is proactive in protecting a “right”? Are you speaking of all 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights, or specifically the Second? Government, at all levels, has had the responsibility of further interpreting those rights as society progresses, but it also has the responsibility of not infringing on those rights(the First 10 Amendments).
3. Who are the Constitutional militia?
Without going into American History, I would regard the word militia in constitutional times to mean any able-bodied citizen (even if at this time it was only men) who could take up arms in defense of their country if so needed and so called upon.
4. Please give some examples of gun control laws you consider do not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Please share as many as you can think of.
Working as an auctioneer and seller of firearms, I am generally in favor of the standard Federal Firearms licensing to know who is buying a selling a commodity. I do not believe this infringes on the right to keep and bear arms.
5. Please give some examples of gun control laws you consider unconstitutional.
As a lawmaker, we work under the assumption that nothing is unconstitutional until a court says it is. I do not believe there are any current unconstitutional laws.
6. Does the right to bear arms include the right for any peaceable citizen to carry them concealed without a permit, as in Vermont?
I am unsure what the word “peaceable” mean? People can go from peaceable to drunk and agitated very quickly. I’m unsure if the Framers of the Constitution fully realized the impact of handguns, and concealed deadly weapons in the late 1700’s. They were generally carrying around muskets. I believe in the freedom to walk anywhere with a rifle strapped on your back. However, there are now laws that prevent you from doing that in banks, et. al. I do not believe it is implied in the second amendment that there is a right to carry a concealed deadly weapon, except in times of war, conflict or threat to our national security. I support allowing carry of them by acquiring a permit to record who is in possession, but do not favor restrictions placed on the permitting requirement.
7. Do you believe that Americans have a right to own, use and carry weapons of military pattern?
Own, yes. I am unsure as to why anyone would be using or carrying these weapons? For hunting purposes, I do not think they’re needed. If you’re carrying a military pattern weapon around town, you’re going to scare people, but I see no concern with owning one in your private collection.
8. Do you support or oppose registration of weapons? Why?
Generally oppose.
9. Do you support or oppose licensing requirements to own or carry firearms? Why?
Support the act of recording who are buying firearms, which generally would apply to carrying as well. Once again, I am in favor of a recording system, but not necessarily a strict licensing system.
10. What specific gun laws will you work to get repealed?
None at this time.
11. If elected, will you back your words of support for firearms rights up with consistent actions? How?
I won’t vote to strip away any current allowance or freedom is given under the Second Amendment.
13. If brief clarification is requested for any of your answers, will you provide it?
Sure, if it’s brief. I have no desire to get into a debate on this forum. My email is dzwonitzer@wyoming.com The Newspaper took one small sample of my comments and decided to put them into print. I appreciate the opportunity to respond to your questions.
David, it seems you have your answer ... no apology necessary. By the way ... what did he say to that reporter?
ReplyDeleteVery plain you have your answer, David. Extremely discouraging. It is apparent that 'they' consider themselves are 'masters', instead of the way it should be.
ReplyDeleteooops! make that 'our' in front of 'masters'
ReplyDeleteWell, let's see here: He ascribes to the "living document" crapola; he just worded it differently. He believes that there aren't any unconstitutional gun laws (that REALLY took some mental gymnastics!) and that nothing is unconstitutional until the SCOTUS says so. (As if they're the infallible (HA!) authority on the subject!)
ReplyDeleteClearly, this asshat is an anti-gun LOSER!
"As a lawmaker, we work under the assumption that nothing is unconstitutional until a court says it is."
ReplyDeleteExcuse me, sir. I am not a state representative, but it seems to me that one really doesn't need the help of a court to define what is constitutional - in fact, judicial activism is one of the major problems in recent American history. (Sure, there are legitimate gray areas with some legislation that needs review from a separate branch of the government, as intended by our Founders', but for some reason, I don't think you were referring to this.)
Doesn't someone with the awesome responsibility of representing "We, the People" have the intellectual ability to discern what is/is not constitutional without the assistance of a court? If not, isn't that representative wasting the valuable time of the judicial branch - and taxpayer money?
"As a lawmaker, we work under the assumption that nothing is unconstitutional until a court says it is. I do not believe there are any current unconstitutional laws."
ReplyDeleteKind of takes the teeth out of the oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States" doesn't it?
By his logic he swore to "support and defend the decisions of the Judicial Branch and the Constitution be damned"
I guess that explains how the "Campaign Finance Reform" travesty got passed.
Ever hear of "Separation of Powers" Representative? How about "Checks and Balances"? Who's the check on the Judicial branch if you aren't up to the task???
"I’m unsure if the Framers of the Constitution fully realized the impact of handguns, and concealed deadly weapons in the late 1700’s."
Considering that the Framers had survived at least one war, many of them two, I'm quite certain that they were aware of the destructive capability of firearms.
What the good Representative seems blissfully unaware of is the time tested and history proven fact of how inestimably more destructive it is and can be when only government agents are entrusted with firearms...This is something that the framers grasped quite well.
"Own, yes. I am unsure as to why anyone would be using or carrying these [military platform] weapons?"
Ever heard of High Powered Rifle competitions? How about just shooting at the range...Isn't that "using" them? The best "use" of all however:
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security"--The Declaration of Independence
Exactly how are we to "throw off" our government in the event that it becomes tyrannical (some would say MORE tyrannical) if we are not entrusted to avail ourselves of the tools necessary to do so?
And the Piece de Resistance:
"I won’t vote to strip away any current allowance or freedom is given under the Second Amendment. "
OOOhhh! Thank you massa, you be so good to me.
"The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed, which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation ... (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." – The Federalist, No. 46 –
--James Madison
Sounds like Mr Zwonitzer fails to live up to Mr. Madison's standard.
As a lawmaker, we work under the assumption that nothing is unconstitutional until a court says it is. I do not believe there are any current unconstitutional laws.
ReplyDeleteBalderdash. It is your job as a lawmaker to be a check against the foibles of the other branches of government.
Laws passed in '34 and then in '86 first arbitrarily taxed them, and then halted domestic production of fully automatic weapons.
Both are blatantly unconstitutional, since the end result is that it costs around 12000 dollars to get a rifle just like one our solders use.
Can you honestly say that restricing the best small arms to the affluent and the government, through such laws is both just and constitutional?
Rep. Zwonitzer's silence is deafening ... but then again, he did say he didn't want to get into a debate on this forum. I wonder why that is? ... all these people wandering around this forum with rifles, uhh ... I mean ideas (or is it opinions? couldn't be facts, could it?) ...maybe he's one of those scared people?
ReplyDeletehmmm ... I'm still wondering what he did say to that reporter ...