Meet Claire Wirth: 2A Candidate for Congress
It’s no secret that I have become extremely dissatisfied with with Thomas Massie, who is my representative to the U.S. Congress. Although I was an early supporter of his, I have been disappointed in recent years to discover his lack of support of or downright opposition to what I consider to be vital pro-Second Amendment legislation. Given his dishonesty regarding his positions on these bills and his outright refusal to answer questions about them, I was happy to discover that he has a challenger in the Republican primary this year.
I recently had the opportunity to talk with political newcomer Claire Wirth, who is opposing Rep. Massie for the Republican nomination to represent Kentucky’s 4th Congressional District.
DBC: Claire, as a first time political candidate, would you take a moment to tell my readers a bit about yourself and your background?
Claire Wirth: I first got involved in politics thru the pro-life movement when I was in high school in Arizona, where I am originally from. I traveled to Washington DC with the March for Life and worked with Sheriff Joe Arpaio in that capacity. I kind of stumbled into real estate at a very young age when I bought my first house, but ended up renting it out. I continued this pattern of buying houses, rolling up my equity in them, and using that to buy additional houses. I eventually applied this experience when I moved into commercial real estate to build a business in that field. I then moved to Kentucky and continued my commercial real estate work here.
DBC: So with all that going on in your life, what made you decide to run for Congress against incumbent Rep. Massie?
CW: Having moved to Kentucky, I originally supported Rep. Massie, but noticed that he was voting against things like the border wall and Second Amendment legislation…which was very surprising considering that he is Chairman of the Congressional Second Amendment Caucus. In fact, although he represents the third most Republic district in the country, he has the eighth most liberal voting record in Congress. Then I looked at his behavior surrounding January 6th and his voting record, and decided I could only sit back and be quiet for so long…and I got angry. Rather than wait for somebody else to do something about it, I decided to be that somebody and take action.
DBC: As you know, I am a dedicated advocate for the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. In general terms, where do you stand on the Second Amendment, and the right to keep and bear arms?
CW: The Second Amendment is very simple; shall not be infringed is very simple, and any law which restricts the right to keep and bear arms is infringement.
DBC: Some specific legislation which Rep. Massie has opposed…whether overtly or not…are bills which would ensure that concealed carry permits are recognized in all 50 states (HR 38) and to remove firearm suppressors from the NFA (HR 95). What are your positions on these bills?
CW: National reciprocity is a great example of something which could have been passed which would have furthered the cause of the Second Amendment, and it’s not often that we have that opportunity. The left has slowly eaten away at our right to keep and bear arms over time, and this is how we get them back, little by little, over time. National reciprocity would have been a huge win for freedom-loving Americans, and its defeat was a slap in the face to supporters of the Second Amendment. I am 100% a supporter of national concealed carry reciprocity. I am also an advocate for HR 95, which would de-list firearms suppressors from the 1934 National Firearms Act, and that needs to happen. I’m not sure how we have this supposed supporter of the Second Amendment in Thomas Massie, yet he has not gotten behind this bill.
And then going back to HR 38, it has been in Congress since at least 2017, and although the current version is a clean bill with no amendments, still Massie will not support it. His excuse in 2017 was that there was NICS language amended to the bill, but there is no such language in the current bill…but he still will not support it. With President Trump in office and a Republican majority, we should have been able to get things like this done.
DBC: Another priority of the gun control movement is the establishment of so-called “red-flag” laws, which allow for the confiscation of firearms from someone who is accused of being a danger to themselves or others, without due process and without any provision to detain or treat the supposedly dangerous person. What are your thoughts on this?
CW: We cannot have red flag laws. Anyone who would vote for red flag laws has no business representing the people. My Dad is a veteran who is 100% disabled due to PTSD, and it’s so sad to me that he’s always worried about having his guns taken away. He was a Navy corpsman, and his concern over having his guns taken discourages him from seeking help. He is so concerned that if he were to seek treatment for his PTSD he could have his guns taken away, that he’d rather live in torment than risk losing his gun rights. Red flag laws do discourage mental health treatment, and disproportionately affects veterans. It’s incredibly unfair.
DBC: A serious issue facing the firearms industry…without which we’d have no arms to keep or bear…is the push by the gun control industry to repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), and make gun manufacturers liable for crimes committed by third parties with their otherwise legal products. President Biden again recently called for such legislation. What are your thoughts?
CW: It’s completely unacceptable. While they say that guns kill so many Americans every year, you could say the same for swimming pools or cars. Are they going to do this for other industries? This is all being pushed to further their agenda of disarming Americans, like what was done in Australia. Real constitutionalist Republicans will never let that happen.
DBC: Another issue of concern to the firearms industry is the increasing practice of financial institutions cutting firearms-related businesses off from services such as refusing business credit or refusing to process credit card payments. What role do you think Congress should have in addressing this problem?
CW: It is a touchy subject, because we want businesses to be able to operate as they choose, but in this case it seems discriminatory to single out one industry, an industry which is protected by the Second Amendment. It seems clear to me that if a credit card company is refusing to process payments for a firearms-related company, that would constitute an infringement, so we will need to push back on things like this very, very hard. For people who oppose the Second Amendment, there are plenty of countries they can flee to where they don’t have to worry about it. But for those of us who value the right to keep and bear arms, America is it. There’s nowhere else to go. I do feel that although we want to preserve a business’s right to operate freely, there is also precedent to intervene on behalf of citizens to exercise their Second Amendment rights, which is specifically protected in the Constitution.
DBC: In the history of this country, there has never been a prohibition on building legal firearms for personal use, but recently the President held a press conference announcing new rules enacted by the Executive Branch which would restrict home built firearms, those which he and the gun control lobby refer to as “ghost guns.” How would you address this as a member of Congress?
CW: I would actually agree with Thomas Massie on this one, that the Executive Branch does not have the authority to make law; that power is reserved for Congress. But this is pretty much par for the course for this administration, and I do appreciate that Thomas Massie is pushing back on this one. But it’s no real surprise that the far left agenda is being pushed in order to rally midterm support from their base. And since we can count on the Democrats to push this type of agenda, what we need are real constitutional conservatives to push back.
DBC: I thought it was interesting during the press conference that President Biden actually admitted that the reason he was doing this through regulatory means via the Executive Branch was precisely because he could not get any such legislation through Congress.
CW: Right. And it is a complete overreach; the President does not have the power to do this, and I’m grateful that we have some representatives who are calling him out on this.
DBC: During the press conference, and along with the usual gun control wish list, President Biden also specifically called for universal background checks and magazine capacity restrictions. What are your thoughts?
CW: For starters, I don’t agree with any magazine capacity restrictions. What exactly constitutes “high capacity”? That’s the real question. Even 30-round magazines are standard capacity with many firearms. I do think that many people on the left are simply lacking education as to what standard capacity magazines are, and there is much that could be done there as well. More widespread education of young people would go a long way towards removing a lot of misconceptions about guns, including what a disarmed society looks like and some of the horrific things that have happened throughout history when a society is disarmed.
DBC: Are there any other Second Amendment issues which concern you?
CW: I think that the National Firearms Act is totally unconstitutional. There should be no such restrictions or taxes on a constitutional right. Can you imagine if you had to buy a tax stamp in order to vote? I would support a total repeal of the National Firearms Act. I would also support the dissolution of the BATFE.
DBC: Do you really think abolishing the BATFE is realistic? After all, even if it were accomplished, those enforcement duties would most likely be assigned to another Federal law enforcement agency such as the FBI. Might it not be more realistic to roll back the regulatory powers of the BATFE and effectively “de-fang” them that way?
CW: I certainly believe that much of federal regulation in this area is overreach, and anything we can do to roll that back is a good thing. While I would love to get rid of the BATFE altogether, from a practical standpoint anything we can do to reduce and limit their enforcement power is progress in the right direction. I am also concerned with the push by the gun control lobby to require gun owners to purchase insurance for their guns, which would have a direct impact on the ability of lower and middle class citizens to own firearms.
DBC: Although this website is primarily concerned with Second Amendment issues, I do want to give you the opportunity to address other subjects. What are some other issues you intend to address as a member of Congress?
CW: The biggest thing is the border wall. I don’t know anyone who is unaffected by drugs in some way. When I speak to constituents in my district, I ask for a show of hands to indicate who has been adversely affected themselves, or their families, or friends by illegal drugs, and every time nearly every single hand goes up. We have fentanyl which is manufactured in China flowing across our porous southern border into the United States, and in Kentucky 75% of overdoses are from fentanyl…which comes from our wide-open border A little girl I fostered was born addicted to fentanyl and heroin, and had to be hospitalized for four weeks before I was able to get her. I am not opposed to immigration, but we need to promote legal immigration. When I visited the southern border, I was told by Border Patrol agents that the border is controlled by the drug cartels on the Mexico side, and you don’t come across without paying the cartels. On top of that, women often will take birth control when they get near the border because they expect to be raped and possibly trafficked…it’s horrifying and brutal, and this is what we’re allowing into our country.
DBC: Any final thoughts?
CW: I think we’ve covered a lot! One thing I would add is that If you want to know if a candidate is the hand-picked, establishment candidate, just ask them if they take money from the Chamber of Commerce. For example, when it comes to the Senate, if you take Chamber of Commerce money, I already know that you belong to Mitch McConnell. I do not take money from Chamber of Commerce.
When I evaluate a political candidate, I first assess them in terms of support for the Second Amendment. Beyond that, I compare the other positions of a candidate to my own, and then cast my vote for the candidate who most closely reflects my own priorities. By that measure, Thomas Massie does not represent me or my priorities as a citizen, nor does he behave as I would want my representative to behave.
Claire Wirth does, and I am pleased to offer my wholehearted endorsement of her campaign to represent the 4th Congressional District of Kentucky. You can learn more about her and support her campaign here: builderclaire.com
