Above: Lee Zeidler (PAC-Co-Chair), Sandy Brown (PAC Member), Michael Bouchard, Larry Bellgraph (PAC Member) On December 1st, 2005 MCRGOPAC (Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners Political Action Committee met with US Senate Candidate (R) Michael Bouchard from Oakland County, and we asked him a series of questions. Attending the meeting was Candidate Bouchard, Lee Zeidler (MCRGOPAC Co-Chair) Larry Bellgraph (PAC Member), and Sandy Brown, (PAC Member). Mike is the final candidate on the Republican side running in the Primary. Formal Endorsements or Non-Endorsements will be issued by the PAC Committee in the future. Our meeting with Mike Bouchard was very positive, he is obviously very pro-gun, and a big 2nd amendment supporter. Mike had good answers to our questions, and was very much on the side of the 2nd Amendment throughout most of his interview. Mike is the Sheriff of Oakland County, and has previously served as a Michigan Senator. Here are the questions we asked, and his responses: Q. Do you think Federal Firearms Licensed Dealers should be liable if the products they sell are used in a crime? A. No Q. Would you support the Federal Assault Weapons Ban if it came up again? If so, Why? A. No Q. Do you think the 2nd Amendment is a collective or individual right? A. I think the 2nd Amendment is a broad based right that guarantees the rights of people in all states, so it's individual, and by shape broader than that. Q. Would you support legislation to issue a Federal Concealed Carry Permit that included all 50 states for US citizens? A. Yes Q. If so for the above question, would you place restrictions on where they would carry and what would they be. A. There would be some places that would have restrictions, for example courtrooms, places that are dispute resolution oriented, airports (sterile area), those that are directly affecting the security of us all. The restrictions would apply to off duty policemen the same as no law enforcement citizens unless the LEO was on duty. Q. Would you support restricting ownership of .50cal BMG rifles, or any other large caliber rifles? If so, why? A. No Q. Would you support lifting restrictions on firearms ownership in the District of Columbia that would make them equal to Michigan gun owner's rights? A. Absolutely! Q. Can you describe any legislation that you would introduce in regards to firearms, either for or against if elected to the US Senate? A. Well that's a perfect example, to remove restrictions in Washington DC. Q. Any others? Well that comes to mind since we just talked about it. Q. Are you a member of the NRA, or MCRGO, or any other pro-gun group? A. I have been a member of a lot of groups, I am currently a member of SCI, a Conservation Shooting Sportsman's Club in my county. I think my NRA membership is active; I still get all the stuff. MCRGO, no, I never got a mailing from them. Q. Are you a member of any anti-gun group? A. No Q. What is your opinion of the National Rifle Association, and what they do and represent? A. Well I think what they do is stand for the freedoms embodied by the 2nd Amendment. They do a very good job at doing just that. Q. What is a good deterrent for crimes committed with guns? Legislation on gun restrictions, or stiffer penalties for the crimes? A. Stiffer penalties. That's a typical response in Government to see a problem that's in this sub sect, and then pass something that drags the rest of the planet into the process. The people that are breaking the law are the ones that should be punished, and the ones that are following the law should be encouraged, applauded and appreciated. Unfortunately, that's not often the case in legislation. Q. If asked by the NRA, or other national or State groups on firearms (on the pro gun side), would you be willing to introduce legislation? A. Yes, Certainly, any group I would love to sit down and chat with if I am philosophically in line with, I would certainly look at legislation that they believe is important. Its not automatic, one of the things I know at having been a State Senator (Michigan) is the devil is always in the details, what sounds good may not taste good. The language is critical and important. You always have to see the language to see if doesn't cause more problems that it fixes. Since you would be representing Michigan Citizens in Washington D.C. we would like to ask a few questions about Michigan Firearms issues. Q. Do you support the Michigan Concealed Carry Law? A. Yes Q. Can you explain the article from the Detroit Free Press saying you were anti-CCW when it passed? A. Sure, I was asked when this bill is moving, what's your thoughts? I was the Sheriff, and I said I have problems with some of the language in the bill, because the language required me to check mental health records. I can't do that by law. Under Health Privacy act I can't access mental health records or any kind of health records. So I said I have a problem with the language that requires me to do something I can't do. That aside, I have always been a supporter of concealed weapons and the right to carry. In any bill you have to get your language right. I received an A+ from the NRA in 1998 when I ran for Senate. Q. Would you support lifting the restrictions on where we can carry, and which ones? A. To be honest with you, I really haven't looked at it, but I think, I don't have a problem with removing churches, hospitals, day cares, but I have a problem with removing Courthouses, Schools, and Sports Arenas, and Stadiums, I have to think it through, I would rather sit down and look at it, I have not really looked at it. I think my answer would be it deserves a review, some of the spots. Q. How do you feel about HB 5142-5143, the current legislation on "home invasion, or no duty to retreat"? A. I think its fine, we should pass that. Q. What do you think about Secretary of State Issue on CPL applications? A. I have no problem with that. In my department we have marching orders that say bring the people in, make it friendly, treat them as a customer, expedite the process, get it back to them as soon as possible. I hired 2 staff members specifically to accommodate people when the law was passed. We are going to make this a pleasing experience to people with government. We handle it like getting a drivers license. As far as the proposed legislation, the devil is in the details again, the verbage has to be very clear and very specific and you have to take the discretionary choice out of the Sec of State office. Q. Should I (we) be able to enjoy the same freedoms in this country as my forefathers? A. Sure Q. Does the constitution mean the same now as it did 229 years ago? A. I sure hope so, that's what we are fighting for. It's been diminished significantly. I think Government has intruded in our life in a lot of ways. Q. Is the Constitution a living document, or should it be changed to keep up with the times? A. I think the document stands on its merit, its was very consciousnessly very well thought out document. What I think is one of the biggest threats to it, is when those that sit on a bench begin to change it based on their view on it. I am a strict constitutionalist, when you sit on a bench, the constitution should be followed, not modified to meet your whims, or the whims of the day. You shouldn't legislate from the bench. Q. Do you feel a Domestic Enemy would include those who would disarm us, or in any way regulate our right to keep and bear arms, that shall not be infringed? A. I think that anybody that steps in such a fashion to diminish your rights, whether it happens to be the 2nd amendment or the 4th amendment, are all situations that need to be stopped. We need to be defenders of our freedoms. Q. The 1st amendment says shall not be abridged, and the 2nd amendment says shall not be infringed, which of these do you feel is stronger? A. I think ones stronger, infringed. Q. Would you intervene on behalf of a Michigan citizen if they were unfairly deprived of their right to keep and bear arms in accordance with the Michigan constitution? And if so what steps would you take? A. I would have to decide or determine how they were disenfranchised or how I can impact that. Philosophically, if anybody I represented had their rights trampled (any amendment), I would respond. That's one of the hallmarks of my Michigan Senate time. I try to fix problems. Government is there to serve you, not you serve them. I would try to get to the bottom of it. I may not be able to do anything; maybe I need you to contact someone else. Q. Do you belong to a local gun or sportsman's club? A. I am a member of 2 or 3 in my county. Q. Have you ever viewed the UN Gun debate with the NRA and IANSA? A. No? Q. What is your political passion? A. Yes, the reason I got into this was there was a number of things I grew up with that I felt were diminished or trampled. I believe is less government, less government intrusion, less regulation, less taxes, the principles that this country fought to create.