May 27, 2016

Dear Candidates and Legislators,
You are receiving this survey because you are a candidate for Colorado State Legislative office, a current
member of the Colorado State Legislature seeking reelection, or an elected official who will be voting on
legislation.
Coloradans for Civil Liberties is working to effect positive legislative change to permanently secure
individual civil liberties. We advocate pro-rights legislation and the candidates and elected officials who
support it. We support restoring freedom —one round at a time.
Please take some time to answer the 12 questions that follow. We will use the answers to the questions
to determine whether to support a candidate, or candidates, in upcoming legislative elections.
When completed, please return the survey to:
Coloradans for Civil Liberties
727 East 16th Avenue
Denver, CO 80203
You may also scan and email the survey to CO2ALiberties@gmail.com.
If you have any questions about the survey questions, please send an email to
CO2ALiberties@gmail.com and one of our coalition members will get back with you.

Please print or write legibly in the spaces provided.
Name: __Michael Seebeck_______________________________________________________________
(Senate/House) District Represented, if currently an officeholder:
Office being sought, if currently a candidate:
Political Party affiliation:

_____________________________

__House 21____________________________________

__Libertarian___________________________________________________

(over)
1. Current state law allows a valid concealed carry permit holder to legally carry a firearm on state
college campuses. Would you oppose a law that would ban or otherwise make it more difficult for a
citizen with a valid concealed carry permit from exercising their right to carry on campus?
Yes __X__ No ____

Why or why not?
Yes, I oppose it. But unlike my opponent, who doesn’t go far enough, I oppose bans on both open and
concealed carry on any primary, secondary, or higher education campus for teachers and administrators
and higher education campus for students as well, and I encourage both secondary and higher
education to make firearm safety and training a required life skills course for all students over 18,
faculty, and staff, right along with First Aid and CPR. The way to overcome fear of firearms is by
education and training, not bans and ignorance.

2. All citizens are entitled to due process and equal treatment under the law. Would you oppose a law
that would restrict the gun rights of citizens accused, but not convicted of charges related to domestic
violence or stalking?
Yes ____

No __X__

Why or why not?
It’s not as simple as my opponent would make it, and it’s more than a simple Second-Amendment-at-alltimes thing that my opponent blindingly and incorrectly advocates for. Violent criminals should be
locked up between arrest and a speedy trial, with no bail or bond. No, I wouldn’t oppose such a
restriction, but only if the law would keep these stalkers and assaulters in custody between arrest and
trial and in doing so does more to protect the victims. Any other law I would oppose, because they are
the wrong solution and simply don’t get the job done. Domestic violence and stalking are serious issues
because restraining orders are only useful if written in Kevlar and enforced with hot lead. If a person is
arrested and charged with domestic violence or stalking, they need to have no bail/bond before trial,
and be kept away from their victims for the victims’ protection. When in custody, then they would be
subject to loss of their firearms rights, but if exonerated, then those rights should be restored.

3. Current state law prohibits the sale, purchase or transfer of ammunition magazines capable of
holding more than 15 rounds. Would you support repealing the current arbitrary limit of 15 rounds?
Yes __X__ No ____
Why or why not?
Yes, I’d support it, but a simple repeal is not enough. There needs to be legislation passed to reinforce
that a magazine limit of any size is prohibited, and that a restriction or ban on any parts of a firearm is
the same as a restriction or ban on the firearm itself, and that’s unconstitutional. It’s more than a
firearms issue; it also goes to the more fundamental issue of property rights. The peaceful acquisition,
possession, use, trade, and disposal of private property is not and should not be any of government’s
business.

4. In Ohio, the Buckeye Firearms Association was successful in winning a full repeal of their magazine
limitation by increasing magazine capacity at every opportunity until they achieved a full repeal. If
political circumstances will not allow a full repeal of the arbitrary limit of 15 rounds in a given legislative
year, would you support an increase in magazine capacity at every opportunity until we get a full repeal?
Yes ____

No __X__

Why or why not?
No, I would not, and there’s a very good reason why. There are many firearms out there in the market
that have a standard magazine of a specific capacity. If that standard magazine capacity is beyond the
incremented limit, then that firearm is unsellable in this state, and that is a de facto ban on that firearm,
and that violates the federal and state constitutions. Plus, as mentioned before, it violates property
rights. This isn’t about Dudley Brown, whom I have no use for, and my opponent making him a
strawman scapegoat to waffle on the issue illustrates her lack of principles on the subject. The repeal
needs to be all capacities, not an increase, because if it can be increased beyond 15, it can be decreased
to 0 later by a different legislature. Best to get it out of the Colorado Revised Statutes completely.

5. Do you support the ability of individual cities and municipalities to enact restrictions on gun rights
that are more stringent than existing restrictions at the state level? For example, should a city or
municipality have the ability to ban open carry, concealed carry or prevent possession or transfer of a
firearm that would otherwise be legal under prevailing state law?
Yes ____

No __X__

Why or why not?
No, I do not support local restrictions. However, my opponent has it wrong. Firearm rights are not a
state issue, nor are they a federal or local issue. They are an individual rights issue, one of both property
and self-defense, derived from the right to life. These rights not only are inherent in our existence, but
supersede all government. Further, they are enumerated (not granted) in the state and federal
Constitutions, and therefore not subject to restriction by counties, cities, or towns. Home Rule cannot
be used as a means to deny constitutional rights, either, and that’s settled law. All government
jurisdictions within Colorado are required to respect the rights of the individual, and that means that the
right to keep and bear arms, per the state Constitution, shall not be called into question.

6. Would you support the passage of so-called “mandatory safe storage laws,” which would dictate
how a firearm in a citizen’s home must be stored? This could include requiring the use of trigger locks,
even when a citizen is physically present in his or her residence, or that firearms not in one’s personal
possession be stored in a gun safe and/or unloaded condition at all times.
Yes ____

No __X__

Why or why not?
Absolutely not. This is one area where my opponent and I completely agree. It should be the
responsibility of the firearms owner.

(over)
7. Would you oppose the passage of a law allowing Colorado citizens to carry a firearm concealed on
their person without a permit, as is currently the law in Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Kansas, Vermont, West
Virginia and Wyoming?
Yes ____

No __X__

Why or why not?
No, I would wholeheartedly support such an interstate reciprocity law, and I would call upon our
Congressmen and Senators to enact federal legislation to have full national reciprocity laws and
constitutional carry in the true spirit of the Second Amendment. Such full reciprocity should extend
vertically throughout government at all levels, from national to local.

8. Do you support the current requirement for background checks on all transfers of firearms, including
sales, trades or loans between law-abiding private citizens or when a law-abiding citizen sends his or her
firearm to a gunsmith for service?
Yes ____

No __X__

Why or why not?
No, I do not support background checks, because they simply violate privacy rights and do not work.
The mass murderers that do their crimes either pass the check beforehand or don’t and get their
weapons elsewhere, or in some cases, don’t even use firearms, like Timothy McVeigh. Again, these
peaceful transactions of property are none of government’s business.

9. Would you support a law restricting the inclusion of mental health records in a background check if
such inclusion infringed upon the gun rights of citizens who were diagnosed with or sought counseling
or treatment for disorders not commonly associated with violent or psychotic behavior, such as
attention deficit, post-traumatic stress, anorexia/bulimia or anxiety?
Yes ____

No __X__

Why or why not?

It’s not as simple as my opponent would believe, and No, I would not support such a law, because I do
not support background checks in the first place, as mentioned above. The real problem is that with the
new publication of DSM-V, practically everything is considered a mental disorder, including owning
firearms, through diagnosis of “Oppositional Defiant Disorder,” or ODD, which according to DSM-V,
includes “adults who exemplify ‘paranoid ideation’ about the government and frequently express these
delusional ideations on the Internet.” In other words, if you don’t trust the government, you are
mentally ill and can be subject to a 72-hour mental detention hold by that same government, isolated
from everyone and denied due process, which is plenty of time for a determination of violent tendencies
where none exist, thus triggering a firearms confiscation, loss of children to CPS, loss of property to pay
for the “treatment,” and a general destruction of a life and family. The problem with using a subjective
mental health diagnosis to pre-declare someone mentally ill is that it is anathema to our system of law,
which deals with actual actions, not what people *could* do. We don’t live in a Minority Report world,
yet using mental illness as a backdoor to violating the rights of perfectly normal people does exactly
that, and it’s wrong. Our legal system reacts to actions done, not proacts to actions not yet made (if
they are made at all!). Destroying people’s families and lives over what they could do instead of what
they actually do is the type of thing seen in totalitarian societies, not a Republic.

10. Do you support legislation that would enable local school boards and/or school administrators to
choose if staff members in possession of a valid concealed carry permit are allowed to carry a concealed
handgun on school premises?
Yes __X__ No ____
Why or why not?
My opponent seems to think that allowing school districts to make a choice and mandating that choice
without their consideration are the same thing, so she in fact opposes the choice in favor of the
mandate, in classic doublespeak. As for me, I support the choice and strongly encourage school districts
to enact it, but with the caveats that who is carrying concealed both varies from time to time, and that it
is clearly and boldly posted that concealed carry is going on at that campus, without stating who is. Plus
the staff and faculty chosen to do so must be of sound mind and physically able to handle the situation
through proper screening and training. These measures make the campus an unattractive target to
shooters, so that the ability to defend becomes less necessary.

11. Would you oppose any legislation that would make the application or renewal process for concealed
carry permits more burdensome than it is today? Additional burdens could include increasing fees,
extending the maximum length of time allowed for background checks or expanding the current training
requirements.
Yes __X__ No ____
Why or why not?

Yes, I oppose such legislation, but I also oppose and would file legislation for the repeal of concealed
carry permit laws in favor of Vermont-style carry, open or concealed. I should not need a government
permission slip to possess or carry around private property or to have the means to defend myself.

12. Do you support the Colorado Sheriffs in their lawsuit against Governor Hickenlooper over their
claims that the ban on the sale and transfer of magazines that hold more than 15 rounds is not only
unenforceable, but also unconstitutional?
Yes __X__ No ____
Why or why not?
Yes, I do. On this issue my opponent and I are in complete agreement. The law is both unenforceable
and unconstitutional, it has cost jobs and tourism revenue, and it isn’t being enforced anyway. Repeal
it.

Signature: __

Date:

31 Aug 2016