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

Mon Aug 15 01:14:40 EDT 2016

Me:  "When the Bylaws and Rules Committee proposed the amendment which is
now Article 11.7..."

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

??? No, it was adopted, which is why it is now in the bylaws...

-Alicia

On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 9:43 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20160814/12db68eb/attachment-0002.html>