By Caroline Wallace at FactCheck.org, June 24th, 2016:
Libertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson claimed that “no politicians outside of Bernie Sanders and myself support legalizing marijuana” at the “congressional, gubernatorial, senatorial level.” He’s wrong.
There are at least 20 other members of Congress and one governor who, as Johnson and Sanders do, support the legalization of marijuana.
Johnson, a former governor of New Mexico, made the claim in a June 16 interview with USA Today‘s Susan Page. Page asked Johnson about his efforts to appeal to young voters who supported Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders.
Read the rest of the article here.
(Via American Third Party Report)
Yes, Tommy guns are illegal — in the UK and Canada.
In the US, however, they are legal — for everyone without restriction according to the US Constitution, for some people under specific circumstances according to the 1934 National Firearms Act and other unconstitutional legislation.
Tommy guns are illegal, so are we careful on how we classify guns?
So why is the government so focused on banning assault rifles rather than handguns?
Because assault rifles can be dangerous. But unlike handguns, they aren’t generally dangerous to the public.
Assault weapons are used in approximately 0.6% of gun homicides. A Department of Justice report said about the Assault Weapons Ban: “Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. [Assault weapons] were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban.” There are more gun homicides every year committed with shotguns (308 in 2013) than there are with rifles (285 in 2013) of any type, “assault” classification or not.
The percentage of homicides using fully automatic weapons as close to non existent as it’s possible to get, outside of movies and government.
Nearly all gun crime is committed with handguns.
“In my imagination, the 2nd Amendment absolutely does allow certain weapons to be banned.”
Fixed, no charge.
Let me clarify my “Tommy Gun” statement. First off, Mr. Knapp – the 2nd Amendment absolutely does allow certain weapons to be banned. Was the now-sunsetted “assault weapons ban” found to be unconstitutional?
I was only partially correct in saying that “Tommy Guns:” are illegal. Apparently only those made after May 19, 1986 are illegal. So it is illegal to make new ones. Sadly older ones are still legal
Since Ron Paul’s repeatedly-stated position was to repeal federal laws against marijuana, returning control to state governments, it’s probably best not to count him as a supporter of legalization.
The reason he took that position is because he was running for, and voting from, a federal office. He has said on multiple occasions that he does not support state level prohibition (of any drug, not just marijuana).
George Dance – That’s the same standard factcheck used to categorize politicians as pro-legalization. The Bernie Sanders bill would remove marijuana as a federally controlled substance. The Jared Polis bill would regulate marijuana at the federal level in the same way as alcohol. It counts both of them as pro-legalization.
“steve m
June 27, 2016 at 22:06
automatic rifle, sub automatic, Thompson machine gun… etc… my preference is not to be in a situation where I need one as a weapon.”
It is better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have one.
automatic rifle, sub automatic, Thompson machine gun… etc… my preference is not to be in a situation where I need one as a weapon.
Beyond a few dozen yards, the Thompson, or “tommy gun” as it is frequently called, is highly inaccurate. It tends to jam, and is only effective at close quarters, such as the bank robberies and drive by assasinations that made them famous nearly a century ago.
Not my choice of defensive weapon by any means.
No, machine guns (as in the type used by the gangsters in the 1930s) aren’t illegal in any sense of the word.
They’re not actually illegal because the US Constitution says they can’t be illegal.
And they’re not formally illegal — they simply require a specific license.
George, Gov. Johnson is probably referring to “machine guns” as in the type used by the gangsters in the 1930’s. As far as I know, they ARE illegal (thankfully).
As for his claims about marijuana legalization – yes, he probably could get more updated info, but I don’t think he was intentionally trying to toot his own horn. He was speaking generally. There are very few congressmen or governors who call for legalization.
Jim “The others cited are all recent (2013, 2014, 2015). So it could be said that Johnson’s claim was just out dated if it weren’t for Ron Paul. ”
Since Ron Paul’s repeatedly-stated position was to repeal federal laws against marijuana, returning control to state governments, it’s probably best not to count him as a supporter of legalization.
The good news here is that another website is giving publicity to The Libertarian Party candidate. Even better good news is that the same site is trying to show how mainstream the push for legalization is becoming, with Senators and Congressmen (more than 1 in each case) joining to support legalization.
And still, in 1999, Gary Johnson was a pioneer, as the first Governor to question the War on Drugs and the first to call for legalization of marijuana, quickly followed by Governor Jesse Ventura of Minnesota.
When I worked on the California Marijuana initiative in 1972, we had a couple left Democrat Congressman who supported it, and several Democrats in the state legislature. Now the Lt Governor of California is calling for an end to marijuana prohibition, and two Republican Congressmen from California along with several Democrats are saying that marijuana possession should not be a criminal offense.
Governor Johnson should just own the mistake by stating that he’s
… “happy to find out that, after all these years, one other governor and 20 House members have also seen the light. That will move us a bit closer to sanity on this issue. With Governor Weld and myself in the White House, maybe we can finally end this tragic War on Drugs. We need to let people live their own lives, and stop putting innocent people in jail with these destructive, racist drug laws.”
The argument being that a Governor can exercise more power on his own than can a US Senator or US Congressman. US Senators and US Congressman have to convince a majority of their peers to get anything done. At most, on his own, a US Senator or US Congressman might be able to temporarily block something. But they can’t enact any policy by themselves. A Governor, to some extent, does have executive powers and can act on his own. And if it’s the Governor of an important state, like say, New York, the Governor’s actions can have national implications.
Looked at another way, the executive and legislative branches of government at both the federal and state level have equal power, but that power is not concentrated equally.
1 President
50 Governors
100 US Senators
435 US Congressman
1,972 State Senators
5,411 State Assemblymen
The US Senate and US Congress can override a presidential veto, but it takes hundreds of them (2/3rds in each body) to do it. The branches of government are equal, but power is more concentrated in the President than it is in any individual US Senator or US Congressman. Similarly, state assemblymen can overturn the actions of the federal government, but it would take thousands of them working together.
Power is more concentrated in a Governor than in a US Senator or US Representative. An individual Governor outranks an individual US Senator or US Congressman. That does not imply that an individual Governor working alone outranks all US Senators and US Congressman working together. One Governor, by himself facing the entire, united, US Senate and US Congress, is going to lose the battle. But one Governor, by himself, can get some things done while one US Congressman, by himself, can’t do anything.
Jim: it could be said that Governors outrank Senators and Congressmen.
It “could be said” that Senators and Congressmen outrank Governors. Or “it could be said” they’re all equal. Or “it could be said” the moon is made of green cheese.
Interesting choice of words you have there. The phrase “it could be said” states a position without actually committing to it. Which is good, because there no way you could actually prove that any of those offices outrank the others.
The others cited are all recent (2013, 2014, 2015). So it could be said that Johnson’s claim was just out dated if it weren’t for Ron Paul. Johnson used to say that he was the highest level elected politician to support legalization and it could be said that Governors outrank Senators and Congressmen.
Can a given person buy a machine gun without being licensed and regulated by the BATFE? My understanding is that licensing is required to purchase, own or possess a machine gun. To me that is close to if not actually illegal. If one person or business manages to own a machine gun under a regulatory or licensing system that isn’t the same as being legal. Maybe our definitions of illegal differ.
If Marijuana was ever declassified as a scheduled substance, the FDA would step in and ban the OTC sale of it. Poll how many of those politicians would support legalization AND no federal regulatory authority over its sale and distribution.
Johnson also claimed in the town hall this past Wednesday that machine guns are illegal. He also advanced as libertarian stands that we have no interest in repealing gun control laws, and no interest in legalizing drugs other than marijuana. His running mate’s state has (at least recently) at least one gun club with a machine gun range. Johnson claimed at the Florida debate that his 1.4 million debt was all owed to his campaign manager.
On the bright side, at some point I think he appeared to commit that the campaign would in part be used to develop the party.