LPCO Issues Resolution on Gun Rights and Watch Lists

l8a8bc0b85cd43ad3810e6eme3Over the past few months, the Libertarian Party has been in the spotlight, and questions have been raised regarding the Libertarian position on gun rights and related issues. In order to address these concerns, the Libertarian Party of Colorado passed the following Resolution:

WHEREAS, Libertarians affirm that self-defense is an inherent human right;

WHEREAS, the Platforms of the National Libertarian Party and the Libertarian Party of Colorado oppose all laws at any level of government restricting, registering, or monitoring the ownership, manufacture, or transfer of firearms or ammunition;

WHEREAS, the Platforms of the National Party and the Libertarian Party of Colorado affirm the right of due process and deny the legitimacy of “victimless crimes”;

WHEREAS, the government has steadily encroached upon these rights by illegitimately regulating and restricting access for firearms and ammunition and may further seek to deprive people who have been convicted of no crime of their inherent right to full self-defense by denying their civil and inherent rights to obtain firearms and ammunition;

BE IT RESOLVED that the Libertarian Party of Colorado opposes any policy which would deny access to any firearms or ammunition to any person simply for being placed on any government watch or no-fly list and reaffirms its call to repeal and oppose any existing or proposed firearm and ammunition regulations.

State Chair Jay North, on behalf of the Libertarian Party of Colorado, has formally submitted this Resolution to the Libertarian National Committee and asked that it pass a similar resolution to clearly declare the Party’s position.

This entry was posted in Libertarian Party and tagged on by .

About Caryn Ann Harlos

Caryn Ann Harlos is a paralegal residing in Castle Rock, Colorado and presently serving as the Region 1 Representative on the Libertarian National Committee and is a candidate for LNC Secretary at the 2018 Libertarian Party Convention. Articles posted should NOT be considered the opinions of the LNC nor always those of Caryn Ann Harlos personally. Caryn Ann's goal is to provide information on items of interest and (sometimes) controversy about the Libertarian Party and minor parties in general not to necessarily endorse the contents.

44 thoughts on “LPCO Issues Resolution on Gun Rights and Watch Lists

  1. Andy

    Excellent press release. Good job for being proactive against the anti-libertarian position put forth on this issue by current VP nominee, William Weld (and Gary Johnson for being “open to this conversation” of violating due process and the right to keep and bear arms).

  2. Tony From Long Island

    No one needs an AR-15 for self-defense. It was not designed as a weapon of self-defense and the Second Amendment allows government to regulate firearms.

    Allowing any citizen to own such a weapon of mass destruction puts my “general welfare” in jeapordy.

    LET THE GAMES BEGIN!

  3. Andy

    That is a load of crap. First off, you are twisting the meaning of both the 2nd amendment and the “general welfare” clause. Second of all, who are you to presume that nobody needs an AR-15? How do you know what other people need? Suppose a riot breaks out and a gang of rioters is headed towards somebody’s home or business? During the Los Angeles riots in the early 1990’s there were Korean shop owners who successfully defended their businesses because they had assault rifles. Suppose a person wants the ability to defend themselves against a tyrannical government, or suppose they want to overthrow the government because they believe it has gotten too corrupt and too tyrannical, just as the Founding Fathers did back in 1776? Wouldn’t it be useful to have AR-15’s for this?

  4. Tony From Long island

    No, no and no.

    The “General Welfare” clause was intentionally left vague – probably to protect against zealots like yourself.

    Give it a rest with overthrowing a tyrannical government. That’s fantasy land. In the real world, where I an the other 99.999% live, I prefer not to have my life threatened every day by regular citizens carrying weapons designed for warfare. Those shop owners you refer to would have protected their life and property just fine with handguns.

  5. robert capozzi

    Tony, by my informal estimation, perhaps 10% or so of NAPster Ls believe there is a right to possess weapons of mass destruction. Most of the rest acknowledge that the inability to point them makes them an inherent risk. They are fuzzy on how they would be banned and what would be done with the existing stockpiles.

  6. Tony From Long Island

    Yeah, this will be a never-ending debate with Andy. Maybe when he reads my posts, his face gets so red it heats up the tin-foil hat.

    One great thing about the Constitution – it can be interpreted in so many wonderful ways.

  7. robert capozzi

    T, what’s kind of amusing to me is some Ls want to use original intent or meaning when interpreting what the Constitution means. Unavoidably, that involves INTERPRETATION…there’s no getting around it, despite the protestations of some Ls that the Constitution requires no interpretation.

    (Others are Spoonerites who reject the Constitution as binding, any way.)

  8. Andy

    “With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creator.” James Madison

  9. Tony From Long Island

    Oh Look! I made him go searching in his dog-eared copy of THE FEDERALIST.

    If you use original intent, I shouldn’t be able to vote since I don’t own land. I’ll let my girlfriend know she can’t vote either. Oh, my black friends, I’ll let them know that if I lend them a dollar, they only owe me back 60 cents.

    So, how about we deal with the real world?

    The words “General Welfare . . . ” Hmm, I’m not sure what the esteemed Mr. Madison was referring to since there are really no powers attached to them. They are in the preamble, which declares the purpose of the entire Constitution. So, for me to interpret it as allowing the people to protect citizens from being killed by a military weapon, is perfectly within its perameters.

  10. Andy

    The Constitution was amended to expand the right to vote to the groups you mentioned. I would actually favor amending the Constitution again, to prohibit anyone who collects welfare or who works for or contracts with the government from being able to vote.

  11. Andy

    I would also prohibit welfare recipients, and government employees and contractors from donating to political campaigns.

  12. Tony From Long Island

    Really? Have you ever known anyone who needed government assistance? Have you ever spoken to someone who has been though a rough patch and needed a helping hand? Pretty heartless. Don’t give me that crap about charities like Harry Browne (whom I voted for in 2000). There weren’t any charities holding out a hand for me.

    I was in need of government assistance for a little over two years and now I am perfectly independent. Wow – it actually works for its intended purpose – just as it does 95% of the time. if you want to target more fraud, I’m with ya, but you really have no idea what you are talking about.

    I have just met a so called “Libertarian” who wants to RESTRICT voting rights. What a disgrace.

    As for the “amendments,” since they weren’t in the ORIGINAL constitution, you can’t claim original intent and include then. Your logic baffles me.

  13. Tony From Long Island

    I won’t even touch your “government contractors can’t vote . . . ” It’s just incredible on its face.

  14. wolfefan

    So Chuck Moulton should not have been permitted to vote for several years (and maybe still shouldn’t – I’m not sure…)

  15. Andy

    Then so be it if that is the case. I am sure that there are at least a few good, pro-freedom people out there who collect checks from the government for one reason or another, but a large percentage of these people are parasites, and they are in the anti-liberty camp.

    If a person collects a check from the government and they can vote and donate to political campaigns it creates a conflict of interest, as they have a vested interest in keeping the government checks coming, and for government to grow bigger and bigger.

    Is government the servant or the master? If people who receive checks from the government, are they not incentivized to vote for and donate to campaigns that are in favor of keeping those checks coming, and to increase the size of those checks?

    People who receive welfare checks, or who receive pay checks from working as government employees or contractors, should be barred from voting, and from donating to political campaigns, for a specified length of time for each year they received a government check (say for 4 years, or 6 years, or something like that).

    Don’t like it? Then do not collect government welfare and do not work as a government employee or contractor.

    I would call this the No Conflicts Of Interest In Voting Or Campaigning Amendment, or something like that. I bet that government would be a lot smaller, and that we would have a lot more freedom right now if this amendment had been passed a long time ago.

  16. Andy

    The only disgrace here is Tony From Long Island fraudulently claiming to be a libertarian.

  17. langa

    Trying to say what someone “needs” is ridiculous. Personally, I don’t think anyone “needs” a 60-inch TV. Does that mean they should be banned? I don’t think my neighbor “needs” a car stereo so loud it rattles the windows of my house. (I used to have one even louder when I was young, and I probably didn’t “need” it, either.) The idea that government should be in the business of deciding what people “need” and banning anything that they don’t “need” is about as authoritarian as it’s possible to get.

  18. wolfefan

    Hi Andy –
    I think I understand your position, but I’m not sure how to implement it or where one draws the lines. There are a few Libertarian elected officials, but they should not be permitted to vote. All teachers, staff, and students at any public school or college, or anyone they contract to, can’t vote. What about those business who have a substantial percentage of their customers on SNAP or some other form of assistance? Their continued well-being as a business is dependent on the benefits coming to those customers – can the business owner vote? In some ways this is an originalist Constitutional position, as the founders wanted a very limited electorate. In other ways, though, I think the government is so entwined with so many lives, for better or worse, that you will disenfranchise a huge number of people (many of whom, such as welfare recipients, hardly vote anyway.) Depending on what degree of separation is required, paid petitioners could conceivably included as people who are (in many cases) dependent upon funds received by the parties from the government or from private individuals in a tax advantaged status.

  19. Andy

    Paid petitioners are not receiving tax payer funds, unless one wants to include when they work a petition that is sponsored by a government employee union or a government contractor, but this is a moot point since under my proposal neither of these groups would be allowed to vote or take part in politics, so petitions that are put out by groups like this currently would not exist, which would be a good thing.

    Also, you act as though I want things to continue as is which is a false assumption. If things were my way there would not be any petitioning because there would be no government to petition because government as we know it would not exist. I suppose there may still be some kind of petitions to voluntary organizations, but I doubt that it would be enough to have much of a business surrounding it.

    If I could push a magic button to make things as I would want them, but it meant no more paid petition work, I would push that button pretty quickly.

  20. Tony From Long Island

    Andy, I am not a “Libertarian.” I left the party almost 10 years ago. I am a Democrat who has some libertarian leaning. According to you, only people who believe that government should, for the most part, not exist would be a libertarian. So by your definition, no, I am not a libertarian. Thankfully, I am not a proponent of anarchy.

    Seems like the only person who wants to restrict freedom on this thread is YOU. Sorta anti-libertarian, eh?

    With regard to public assistance, I will say again that you have NO IDEA what you are talking about.

    I’m just so sad that I can not be as affluent or lucky as you.

  21. Tony From Long Island

    I will say again that I am not a Libertarian. I left the party almost 10 years ago. I am a Democrat with some libertarian leanings. According to you, the only true libertarians are those who favor anarchy. Thankfully, I am not one of them. You and the other 50 or so of you can have fun in your fantasy land, but I choose to live in the real world.

    The only person on this thread who wants to limit liberty is apparently you Andy. Sounds pretty un-libertarian to me.

    As for public assistance, I will reiterate that you don’t know what you are talking about. Go talk to someone who receives SNAP. Spend a day in your local social services building – but then again, you are apparently heartless, so that might just bore you.

    I am just sad that I am not as affluent and lucky as you

  22. dL

    “No one needs an AR-15 for self-defense.”

    The police? The military?

    Let us be clear that you are not for gun control. Rather, you are for disarming the citizenry while offering no objection to the continued “general welfare violating” arming of the state.

  23. dL

    “I would also prohibit welfare recipients..from donating to political campaigns.”

    You would have to ban pretty much everyone from donating then. Looking at the federal budget, I don’t think Medicaid, Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit, Supplemental Security Income quite explains where all that money is going. Not to mention, I sort of doubt anyone on low-income government assistance programs is donating much coin to political campaigns. They might be donating their time…would you ban that too?

  24. dL

    “You and the other 50 or so of you can have fun in your fantasy land, but I choose to live in the real world.”

    And the real world be perpetual war, mass murder, the mass imprisonment of the carceral state, mass deportation, mass surveillance, and mass social control. In totality, a thing that demands our subservience to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded…

    Of course, there is no possible alternative to the “real world”. But that’s why we have the DHS, NSA, FBI, ATF, FDA, DEA, CIA, TSA, ISA, CGI, DIA, OIC, OIA, OTFI, MCIA, NGIA, NRO, NIA, CBP, ICE, USCIS, USSS, FAMS, ERO, OFO, FPS, DOE, OST, BIS, EPA, FCC, FAA, FED, FDIC, FTC,ICC, SEC, CPSC, DOC, USFS, USDA, PFPA, HUD, DOT, AID, USCP

    just to make sure!

    After all, the price of civilization is exhausting the combinatorics of the 3-letter acronym.

  25. Andy

    None of these programs would exist right now if there had been an amendment in place that prevented people who receive checks from the government from voting.

    Yes, I would prohibit all of those people from voting or donating to political campaigns. Sure, the average poor welfare recipient probably donates little or nothing to campaigns anyway, but many of these people do vote, so revoking their ability to vote to increase the welfare state would be a good thing. What would be really devastating to big government campaigns would be taking away voting “rights” from government employees and contractors, and from corporations that get corporate welfare. Could you imagine no money from government employee unions, defense contractors, etc….?

  26. dL

    “Tony, by my informal estimation, perhaps 10% or so of NAPster Ls believe there is a right to possess weapons of mass destruction. Most of the rest acknowledge that the inability to point them makes them an inherent risk. They are fuzzy on how they would be banned and what would be done with the existing stockpiles.”

    Hmm, by my estimation, 100% of the republican-lite-wannabers Ls would concur that the 10% of the Napsters should able able to own/wield/use WMDs at tax payer expense if these Napsters can only manage to find a way to don an official enough looking uniform. A pretty hat would also help in that regard. Shiny badges a big plus.

    The other 90% of Napsters who find WMDs to be wholly a product of government incentive, that they have no defensive use other mutual assured destruction and have no practical use other than geo-political extortion, favor their immediate abolition. In total. By means of international treaty. Disposal by the same means they are disposed of now when they aged sufficiently to qualify for intermittent disposal(i.e, replaced by newer weapons). Clear enough?

  27. dL

    ‘Yes, I would prohibit all of those people from voting or donating to political campaigns. Sure, the average poor welfare recipient probably donates little or nothing to campaigns anyway, but many of these people do vote, so revoking their ability to vote to increase the welfare state would be a good thing. What would be really devastating to big government campaigns would be taking away voting “rights” from government employees and contractors, and from corporations that get corporate welfare. Could you imagine no money from government employee unions, defense contractors, etc….?’

    Of course, include social security, medicare…also include anyone who has a bank account and a credit card because those things are subsidized, too(FDIC insurance). Also include anyone who is protected from competition, receives a business subsidy, etc….

    Maybe 10% of the federal budget goes to the poor, low-income. The remaining 90% balance goes to something else, whether it be to wealthy rent-seeking, protecting the system, military, middle class subsidies, etc. If you think you can get the government you want by only allowing those to vote who you think should vote, then you are only going to arrive at one figure: 0. Nada. You could reach that conclusion either through pure libertarian class deduction or you could reach it through democratic polling. Go around and ask everyone who they think shouldn’t be allowed to vote(I assume you are not claiming to be a dictator and thus vest only yourself with this decision-making authority). After everyone has been queried, you will end up at precisely 0.

  28. robert capozzi

    dL: The other 90% of Napsters who find WMDs …favor their immediate abolition. In total. By means of international treaty. Disposal by the same means they are disposed of now when they aged sufficiently to qualify for intermittent disposal(i.e, replaced by newer weapons). Clear enough?

    me: Actually, no. As I understand it, there have been international treaties in place to stop the proliferation of WMD, and yet nation-states have gotten them. What makes you think that “club” members would be gullible enough to sign such a treaty when enforcement is basically impossible?

    Think it through.

    I note that a true NAPster rejects international treaties anyway since all States are illegitimate. This to me implies that the no-particular-order NAPster should first and foremost advocate the abolition of any State, including ones with WMD. So then we have a huge challenge determined who has title to its WMD stockpiles, and then getting those people to sign a “treaty” with other possessors of WMD becomes even MORE impossible.

    Nonarchism was a quaint idea that had an outside chance, pre-1945. It is now impossible, barring some sort of miracle.

  29. dL

    “As I understand it, there have been international treaties in place to stop the proliferation of WMD”

    Non-Proliferation is not abolition. A non-proliferation treaty means those that have them keep them and then use them for geo-political extortion against those who do not have them. Hence, those who do not have them pursue them as means of avoiding extortion by those who do have them.

    Many of warfare techniques of the WW I were subsequently banned by international treaty. Unfortunately, the warfare of WW II has not been banned b/c the United States, the single largest purveyor of war, has no interest in the abridgment of its power to mass kill and intimidate. Things that should be banned and prosecuted as war crimes include: nuclear weapons, the first strike use of nuclear weapons, the mass carpet bombing of civilian populations.

  30. robert capozzi

    dL, you may not realize it, but you are supporting my point. Despite the banning of chemical weapons from WWI, countries still have them and have used them. Non-proliferation should be easier than abolition, and that has failed, too.

    It sucks, but it’s reality.

  31. robert capozzi

    L: If there were no nation-states, no one would have any incentive to use WMDs.

    me: A) A real big IF.

    B) If — somehow — nation-states went poof, and yet WMD were still in existence, sicko owners of the left-over weapons would have incentives to threaten to use or use them to control territory.

  32. Be Rational

    “Yes, I would prohibit all of those people from … donating to political campaigns.”

    ****

    So, you’re calling for banning free speech and repeal of the 1st Amendment then.

  33. Tony From Long Island

    DL: ” . . . . Let us be clear that you are not for gun control. Rather, you are for disarming the citizenry while offering no objection to the continued “general welfare violating” arming of the state. . . . . ”

    No. The 2nd Amendment does not say that citizens can own any firearm ever to come into existence. I am fine with any citizen owning a shotgun or a handgun. . . .” not military style weapons meant ONLY for military use.

    All of you “original intent” people should just stick to muskets. The founders didn’t have any AR-15.

    Also, I am not for GUN CONTROL. I am for gun REGULATION. They are not the same thing.

  34. LIbertyDave

    Tony From Long Island,

    You having an irrational fear of assault rifles does not justify your support to initiate violence against other people for owning one.

    Your stance is the same as someone who has an irrational fear of dogs calling for a ban of pit bulls because according to them everyone knows that pit bulls are vicious. But once pit bulls are banned the irrational fear will still remain and they will eventually call for the banning of all dogs.

    If your irrational fear is preventing you from living a normal life there are doctors and medication that can help you more than banning guns ever will. You should get the help you need for your irrational fear of guns before it drives you to commit violence against innocent people who don’t have your fears.

  35. robert capozzi

    LibertyDave, clear enough. Is there a point when weapons are no longer protected under 2A. Machine guns? Bazookas? etc.

    If you DO draw the line, is that an indication that YOU have an irrational fear of that weapon, or would there be another explanation?

  36. LIbertyDave

    Robert Capozzi

    After reading your posts here, you seem to me to be a person that gets off on arguing with others. This is not a vice of mine so if I will answer your question above but will probably ignore any other posts you make.

    The 2nd amendment is clear, the right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Because this is an amendment to the constitution it restricts the government’s ability to use the provisions in the constitution to ban or regulate weapons.

    The Bill of Rights amends the constitution, not the other way around.

    As for my fears, I have no fears. I will live my life according to my beliefs regardless of what laws are passed by the government.

  37. langa

    If — somehow — nation-states went poof, and yet WMD were still in existence, sicko owners of the left-over weapons would have incentives to threaten to use or use them to control territory.

    For what purpose? Typically, people look to conquer territory for one of two reasons — either to enslave the population, or to exploit the natural resources (or both). Using WMDs would defeat either of those purposes: it would ruin the natural resources and kill the would-be slaves.

  38. langa

    And as far as “threatening” to use it for blackmail, what’s the point? There’s no state to give in to your demands. Historically, WMDs have only ever been used in retaliation against the use of conventional military force by — you guessed it — nation-states. Without nation-states, any “warfare” that took place would likely be low level, guerilla-type stuff. Using WMDs in such conflicts would be like putting dynamite in a mouse trap — pure, pointless overkill.

  39. Caryn Ann Harlos

    ==Robert Capozzi

    After reading your posts here, you seem to me to be a person that gets off on arguing with others. This is not a vice of mine so if I will answer your question above but will probably ignore any other posts you make.==

    Bingo.

  40. Caryn Ann Harlos

    ==State Chair Jay North, on behalf of the Libertarian Party of Colorado, has formally submitted this Resolution to the Libertarian National Committee and asked that it pass a similar resolution to clearly declare the Party’s position.==

    I submitted this request to the LNC on behalf of LPCO. The LNC is now formally considering adopting a similar resolution.

  41. Caryn Ann Harlos

    ====

    We have an electronic mail ballot.

    Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by August 22, 2016 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.

    Co-Sponsors: Harlos, Katz, Hayes, Goldstein, Vohra

    Motion:

    WHEREAS, Libertarians affirm that self-defense is an inherent human right;

    WHEREAS, the Platform of the Libertarian Party opposes all laws at any level of government restricting, registering, or monitoring the ownership, manufacture, or transfer of firearms or ammunition;

    WHEREAS, the Platform of the Libertarian Party affirms the right of due process and deny the legitimacy of “victimless crimes”;

    WHEREAS, the government has steadily encroached upon these rights by illegitimately regulating and restricting access for firearms and ammunition and may further seek to deprive people who have been convicted of no crime of their inherent right to full self-defense by denying their civil and inherent rights to obtain firearms and ammunition;

    BE IT RESOLVED that the Libertarian National Committee opposes any policy which would deny access to any firearms or ammunition to any person simply for being placed on any government watch or no-fly list and reaffirms its call to repeal and oppose any existing or proposed firearm and ammunition regulations.

    =====

  42. robert capozzi

    LD: The 2nd amendment … restricts the government’s ability to use the provisions in the constitution to ban or regulate weapons.

    me: I’d asked “Is there a point when weapons are no longer protected under 2A. Machine guns? Bazookas? etc.”

    So, by your answer, I’m taking it that you believe 2A protects the right to own and carry machine guns and bazookas, is that correct? You’ve left it open, so I’m also assuming that ANYTHING that is a weapon is protected, yes?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *