[Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2016-03: Gun Rights Resolution

Mon Aug 15 00:43:59 EDT 2016

My response to Alicia:

==When the Bylaws and Rules Committee proposed the amendment which is now
Article 11.7, (The National Committee may adopt public policy resolutions
by a ¾ vote with previous notice or by unanimous consent without previous
notice.) the rationale for setting the bar so high was to discourage the
LNC from spending time congratulating itself over restatements of the
platform instead of doing more productive tasks.  We could pass a
resolution about each plank in the platform, but that's not a good use of
our time.==

Which failed.  And thus is a presupposition in favour. As I noted before we
have had resolutions restating numerous things before.

==In this particular case, it seems the motivation is to (politely on
2016-03, but less politely on 2016-04) throw stones at our presidential
ticket.===

Interesting that standing for our Platform is throwing stones.  Is the
proposed contract being negotiated by Chair Sarwark asking for a pledge to
uphold our Platform throwing stones too?

== Our delegates knew at the convention that there were certain subjects
where the nominees weren't completely aligned with platform, but they
nominated them anyway.  I don't want the LNC to spend the next three months
passing a series of resolutions picking fights with our presidential
ticket.  It's poor form.==

and no one suggested a series, but in fact, our Bylaws (the same Bylaws
that delegates agreed to) uphold us to be committed to support as long as
the Campaigns are conducted in accordance with the Platform of the Party.
And the rest of the Bylaws binds us to the Statement of Principles.

However, this resolution came out of Colorado, and I can authoratatively
say that Colorado (and this is confirmed by an upcoming interview with the
State Chair in The Coloradoan) was speaking not only of the recent
statements by Weld but also of Obama and Clinton and Trump.

==Many of our members disagree with at least one aspect of our platform,
but we have a tent big enough to still work together for progress in the
right direction.  ===

And terrorist watch lists are a step in the right direction precisely how?

==If Ron Paul were our nominee, would the LNC attack his pro-life stance
from the sidelines during the campaign?===

If the public were becoming confused on the LP position?  ABSOLUTELY.

==  Sometimes we are our own worst enemy.==

Yes, by not making sure that we support our principles.

==It only takes a handful of "no" votes to stop the trend before it
starts.===

and enough yeses to perhaps stop the growing tide of member concern that is
demanding a disqualification vote.  I already have been put on notice that
members of Region 1 are going to petition me to bring one.  I want to avoid
that and fulfill our duties to the Bylaws.

-- 
*In Liberty,*
*Caryn Ann Harlos*
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona,
Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
Harlos at LP.org
Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
<http://www.lpcolorado.org/>
Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
<http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/>

On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 9:52 PM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com> wrote:

> I vote no on this motion.
>
> My opposition isn't because I disagree with the sentiments of the
> resolution.  I agree with Mr. Bittner that our platform already positions
> the party on this subject.
>
> When the Bylaws and Rules Committee proposed the amendment which is now
> Article 11.7, (The National Committee may adopt public policy resolutions
> by a ¾ vote with previous notice or by unanimous consent without previous
> notice.) the rationale for setting the bar so high was to discourage the
> LNC from spending time congratulating itself over restatements of the
> platform instead of doing more productive tasks.  We could pass a
> resolution about each plank in the platform, but that's not a good use of
> our time.
>
> In this particular case, it seems the motivation is to (politely on
> 2016-03, but less politely on 2016-04) throw stones at our presidential
> ticket.  Our delegates knew at the convention that there were certain
> subjects where the nominees weren't completely aligned with platform, but
> they nominated them anyway.  I don't want the LNC to spend the next three
> months passing a series of resolutions picking fights with our presidential
> ticket.  It's poor form.
>
> Many of our members disagree with at least one aspect of our platform, but
> we have a tent big enough to still work together for progress in the right
> direction.  If Ron Paul were our nominee, would the LNC attack his pro-life
> stance from the sidelines during the campaign?  Sometimes we are our own
> worst enemy.
>
> It only takes a handful of "no" votes to stop the trend before it starts.
>
> -Alicia
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 8:40 PM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>> -Alicia
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>

-- 
*In Liberty,*
*Caryn Ann Harlos*
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona,
Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
<http://www.lpcolorado.org>
Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
<http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20160814/9458565a/attachment-0002.html>