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

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

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-...@hq.lp.org]

Aye

_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-bu...@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. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Aye

 

~David Pratt Demarest

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Aye.

Patrick McKnight

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Aye

Sam Goldstein

Libertarian National Committee

Member at Large

8925 N Meridian St, Ste 101

Indianapolis IN 46260

317-850-0726 Phone

317-582-1773 Fax

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

 

Though an alternate, I vote aye.

 

---

Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
LPKY Judicial Committee

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Yes

Daniel Hayes
LNC At Large Member

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I ask that a correction be made to the following statement...3rd clause of the resolution.

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

The verbs must agree with the subject...which is the Platform of the Libertarian Party (singular), and it affirms and denies...

Thanks!

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

aye

On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 11:50 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynan...@gmail.com> wrote:

Aye

On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 9:40 PM, Alicia Mattson <agma...@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-bu...@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. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

--

Arvin Vohra

www.VoteVohra.com
Vote...@gmail.com
(301) 320-3634

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Aye. Jeff Hewitt 

Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

-------- Original message --------
From: Arvin Vohra <vote...@gmail.com>
Date: 8/13/2016 6:50 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2016-03: Gun Rights Resolution

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Nice catch, Whitney.  I've credited you with a brownie point.

And now the bad news...

In a meeting where we're all participating at the same time, we vote on amendments before we vote on the main motion.  The amendments may impact how we want to vote on the main motion. 

In email ballots, there's no real process for handling amendments before voting on the main motion. 

Once the main motion starts, it can take up to 10 days to complete.  Amendments are motions just like any other, and the only way to vote on them is by email ballot.  If you start an amendment afterwards, that also takes up to 10 days to complete.  Unless there is a successful get-out-the-vote effort to get everyone to vote on the amendment early, the amendment vote will end until after the main motion has ended.  People have to vote on the main motion not knowing whether or not the amendment will be adopted.  This is backwards order.

In the current situation, processing Starchild's extensive amendment as an amend-something-previously-adopted motion isn't so bad because it essentially gives the LNC a choice between two different versions.

We could start yet a third email ballot as an amend-something-previously-adopted to fix the grammatical error that Ms. Bilyeu has pointed out...

If we were in a face-to-face meeting, this fix would very likely be done in a few seconds by asking, "Is there objection to this correction?  Hearing no objection, the grammatical error will be fixed."

I'm going to suggest that we use the same method here.  Though it's not technically correct, I don't really imagine anyone complaining about it or arguing that their rights were violated.

IF THERE IS NO OBJECTION, I WILL CORRECT THE DENY/DENIES GRAMMATICAL ERROR IN EMAIL BALLOT 2016-03.

I'll wait the same 10 days that our bylaws establish as being a reasonable amount of time for someone to participate in an email ballot.

If someone objects, then we'll run another email ballot and process it formally.

-Alicia

On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 8:04 AM, Whitney Bilyeu <whitn...@gmail.com> wrote:

I ask that a correction be made to the following statement...3rd clause of the resolution.

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

The verbs must agree with the subject...which is the Platform of the Libertarian Party (singular), and it affirms and denies...

Thanks!

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I'm not collecting brownie points, but that was actually one of the minor grammatical fixes that I made in the version of the resolution I proposed several days ago (below).

Love & Liberty,

                                    ((( starchild )))

At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee

                                 (415) 625-FREE

On Aug 10, 2016, at 9:11 AM, Starchild wrote:

Thanks, Caryn and all. 

I noticed one minor error in the language of my proposed version of the Colorado resolution – I forgot to add the word "and" after the first two "Whereas" clauses, as I did for the others. I trust this change can be incorporated into the proposal on the table without objection?

The revised wording with changes would read:

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

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; and

WHEREAS, the Platform of the Libertarian Party affirms the right of due process and denies the legitimacy of laws against victimless "crimes”; and

WHEREAS, governments in the United States have steadily encroached upon these rights by illegitimately regulating and restricting access to firearms and ammunition and may further seek to abrogate civil rights, and indeed the basic human right, to self-defense by prohibiting access to firearms and ammunition even in cases where a person has not been convicted of any crime; and

WHEREAS some recent statements by Libertarian candidates appearing in the media have the potential to cause confusion among members of the public regarding how Libertarians view these issues;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Libertarian National Committee opposes any law or policy which would deny or restrict any person's access to firearms or ammunition simply as a result of their name appearing on a government watch or no-fly list, reaffirms both our party's opposition to any further regulations on firearms and ammunition as described above and our demand that all such existing regulations be repealed, and calls upon Libertarian candidates to uphold our party's pro-freedom stance.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
_______________________________________________
Lnc-votes mailing list
Lnc-...@hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-votes_hq.lp.org

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Starchild, yes, you did catch that correction, but the brownie point potential was canceled by the fact that your phrasing of the amendment simply left out some of the original words from Caryn Ann's resolution rather than showing them as strike-outs.  I am reviewing word-by-word and correcting those details now so your amendment will be complete.

:-)

-Alicia

On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 10:43 PM, Starchild <sfdr...@earthlink.net> wrote:

I'm not collecting brownie points, but that was actually one of the minor grammatical fixes that I made in the version of the resolution I proposed several days ago (below).

Love & Liberty,

                                    ((( starchild )))

At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee

                                 (415) 625-FREE

On Aug 10, 2016, at 9:11 AM, Starchild wrote:

Thanks, Caryn and all. 

I noticed one minor error in the language of my proposed version of the Colorado resolution – I forgot to add the word "and" after the first two "Whereas" clauses, as I did for the others. I trust this change can be incorporated into the proposal on the table without objection?

The revised wording with changes would read:

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

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; and

WHEREAS, the Platform of the Libertarian Party affirms the right of due process and denies the legitimacy of laws against victimless "crimes”; and

WHEREAS, governments in the United States have steadily encroached upon these rights by illegitimately regulating and restricting access to firearms and ammunition and may further seek to abrogate civil rights, and indeed the basic human right, to self-defense by prohibiting access to firearms and ammunition even in cases where a person has not been convicted of any crime; and

WHEREAS some recent statements by Libertarian candidates appearing in the media have the potential to cause confusion among members of the public regarding how Libertarians view these issues;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Libertarian National Committee opposes any law or policy which would deny or restrict any person's access to firearms or ammunition simply as a result of their name appearing on a government watch or no-fly list, reaffirms both our party's opposition to any further regulations on firearms and ammunition as described above and our demand that all such existing regulations be repealed, and calls upon Libertarian candidates to uphold our party's pro-freedom stance.

On Aug 13, 2016, at 10:16 PM, lnc-...@hq.lp.org wrote:

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
_______________________________________________
Lnc-votes mailing list
Lnc-...@hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-votes_hq.lp.org

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

On another note... This first motion has to pass or your motion becomes moot Starchild. So Ya know...you could vote.😎

Daniel Hayes

LNC At Large Member

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 14, 2016, at 12:43 AM, Starchild <sfdr...@earthlink.net> wrote:

I'm not collecting brownie points, but that was actually one of the minor grammatical fixes that I made in the version of the resolution I proposed several days ago (below).

Love & Liberty,

                                    ((( starchild )))

At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee

                                 (415) 625-FREE

On Aug 10, 2016, at 9:11 AM, Starchild wrote:

Thanks, Caryn and all. 

I noticed one minor error in the language of my proposed version of the Colorado resolution – I forgot to add the word "and" after the first two "Whereas" clauses, as I did for the others. I trust this change can be incorporated into the proposal on the table without objection?

The revised wording with changes would read:

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

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; and

WHEREAS, the Platform of the Libertarian Party affirms the right of due process and denies the legitimacy of laws against victimless "crimes”; and

WHEREAS, governments in the United States have steadily encroached upon these rights by illegitimately regulating and restricting access to firearms and ammunition and may further seek to abrogate civil rights, and indeed the basic human right, to self-defense by prohibiting access to firearms and ammunition even in cases where a person has not been convicted of any crime; and

WHEREAS some recent statements by Libertarian candidates appearing in the media have the potential to cause confusion among members of the public regarding how Libertarians view these issues;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Libertarian National Committee opposes any law or policy which would deny or restrict any person's access to firearms or ammunition simply as a result of their name appearing on a government watch or no-fly list, reaffirms both our party's opposition to any further regulations on firearms and ammunition as described above and our demand that all such existing regulations be repealed, and calls upon Libertarian candidates to uphold our party's pro-freedom stance.

On Aug 13, 2016, at 10:16 PM, lnc-...@hq.lp.org wrote:

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+u...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+u...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
_______________________________________________
Lnc-votes mailing list
Lnc-...@hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-votes_hq.lp.org

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+u...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I doubt there will be any objection to your correction Alicia, and thank you. 

On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 12:07 AM, Daniel Hayes <daniel...@icloud.com> wrote:

On another note... This first motion has to pass or your motion becomes moot Starchild. So Ya know...you could vote.😎

Daniel Hayes

LNC At Large Member

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 14, 2016, at 12:43 AM, Starchild <sfdr...@earthlink.net> wrote:

I'm not collecting brownie points, but that was actually one of the minor grammatical fixes that I made in the version of the resolution I proposed several days ago (below).

Love & Liberty,

                                    ((( starchild )))

At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee

                                 (415) 625-FREE

On Aug 10, 2016, at 9:11 AM, Starchild wrote:

Thanks, Caryn and all. 

I noticed one minor error in the language of my proposed version of the Colorado resolution – I forgot to add the word "and" after the first two "Whereas" clauses, as I did for the others. I trust this change can be incorporated into the proposal on the table without objection?

The revised wording with changes would read:

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

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; and

WHEREAS, the Platform of the Libertarian Party affirms the right of due process and denies the legitimacy of laws against victimless "crimes”; and

WHEREAS, governments in the United States have steadily encroached upon these rights by illegitimately regulating and restricting access to firearms and ammunition and may further seek to abrogate civil rights, and indeed the basic human right, to self-defense by prohibiting access to firearms and ammunition even in cases where a person has not been convicted of any crime; and

WHEREAS some recent statements by Libertarian candidates appearing in the media have the potential to cause confusion among members of the public regarding how Libertarians view these issues;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Libertarian National Committee opposes any law or policy which would deny or restrict any person's access to firearms or ammunition simply as a result of their name appearing on a government watch or no-fly list, reaffirms both our party's opposition to any further regulations on firearms and ammunition as described above and our demand that all such existing regulations be repealed, and calls upon Libertarian candidates to uphold our party's pro-freedom stance.

On Aug 13, 2016, at 10:16 PM, lnc-...@hq.lp.org wrote:

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
_______________________________________________
Lnc-votes mailing list
Lnc-...@hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-votes_hq.lp.org

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Yes

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Aye.

Whitney Bilyeu

Region 7 Rep

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

To answer Brett, oftentimes issues are part of the public consciousness that require affirmative statements even if that repeat things said elsewhere.  The LNC has passed such resolutions before, including inviting people to join our Party.  *Should* we have to invite people to join our party, isn't that repeating the obvious?  Yes it is, and yes it is appropriate.  Our provision about silence on an issue says "neither approve or disapprove" so that is not relevant here.  We most certainly disapprove.

Members have been pretty upset lately.  Some calling for some pretty extreme things.  I believe works towards our duty of presenting a clear Libertarian message in the face of possible confusion and the governmental trajectory to deny it which is a clear and imminent danger.

After all, we resolved at Convention taxation is theft too.  Resolutions are precisely for things such as this.  To make timely and appropriate statements, even if it is just to reassert where we already stand.  I tell my husband that I love him daily.  I don't just refer back to when I first said it.

-- 

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Brett Bittner <brett....@lp.org> wrote:

TL;DR - I vote Nay.

Perhaps I misunderstand the point of a resolution that simply reaffirms our platform position with regard to an individual's right of self-defense by way of a firearm. I believe that nothing in our platform indicates or implies that we would support denying access to any firearms or ammunition to any person simply for being placed on any government watch or no-fly list, and we include a provision with regard to our platform's silence on an issue, so this resolution seems to be redundant to the platform. Thus, I vote nay.

Brett C. Bittner

Region 3 Representative 

Libertarian National Committee

brett....@lp.org

317.699.2611

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I believe that Mr. Demerest has already cast his vote. But in the event that he has not and does not, I vote "yes".

---

Sean O'Toole
se...@kingfieldcapital.com
(816) 739-2737

On 12 Aug 2016, at 22:40, Alicia Mattson 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-bu...@hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Thanks, Sean. I have voted Aye this motion and will vote Aye on Starchild’s amendment to the motion on but I appreciate your vote too!

 

Any issues with ballot access in Missouri? My wife and I just collected about 50 signatures for Iowa this afternoon and will go out again tomorrow if necessary before the Iowa deadline Friday. Still have not heard back from Minnesota. I have never gotten a response from Wisconsin but I think I heard they are okay. Since I found out about these Region 6 ballot access issues only by accident, I jacked up the ballot access committee to keep the regional reps and alternates informed on ballot access issues in their regions. In general, it appears to me that we need more robust communication channels at all levels of the LNC.

 

Celebrate Life, Set the Bar High and LIVE FREE!

 

~David Pratt Demarest

Region 6 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (IA, IL, MN, MO, NE, ND, WI)

Secr...@LPNE.org

David.D...@LP.org

DPDem...@centurylink.net

David.D...@firstdata.com

Cell:      402-981-6469

Home: 402-493-0873

Office: 402-222-7207

 

From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-busine...@hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of Sean O'Toole
Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2016 4:03 PM
To: lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2016-03: Gun Rights Resolution

 

I believe that Mr. Demerest has already cast his vote. But in the event that he has not and does not, I vote "yes".

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Good work David! Thanks for working on Iowa. Missouri is covered as we consistently exceed the minimum vote counts to remain a recognized party here. Minnesota shouldn't be a problem. Traditionally, Minnesotans are willing to sign even when they disagree with us. The total signatures needed used to get collected over a few weeks with volunteers at a few well attended festivals.

Interstate communications and state to LNC do seem to be lacking. The only time we Missourians seem to look outside the state is when we are looking to put together multi-state conventions every few years. I'd like to see that change but my peers here in Missouri are pretty busy with the 40+ campaigns we have this year.

---

Sean O'Toole
se...@kingfieldcapital.com
(816) 739-2737

On 14 Aug 2016, at 18:59, David Demarest wrote:

Thanks, Sean. I have voted Aye this motion and will vote Aye on Starchild’s amendment to the motion on but I appreciate your vote too!

Any issues with ballot access in Missouri? My wife and I just collected about 50 signatures for Iowa this afternoon and will go out again tomorrow if necessary before the Iowa deadline Friday. Still have not heard back from Minnesota. I have never gotten a response from Wisconsin but I think I heard they are okay. Since I found out about these Region 6 ballot access issues only by accident, I jacked up the ballot access committee to keep the regional reps and alternates informed on ballot access issues in their regions. In general, it appears to me that we need more robust communication channels at all levels of the LNC.

Celebrate Life, Set the Bar High and LIVE FREE!

~David Pratt Demarest

Region 6 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (IA, IL, MN, MO, NE, ND, WI)

Secr...@LPNE.org Secr...@LPNE.org

David.D...@LP.org David.D...@LP.org

DPDem...@centurylink.net DPDem...@centurylink.net

David.D...@firstdata.com David.D...@firstdata.com

Cell: 402-981-6469

Home: 402-493-0873

Office: 402-222-7207

From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-busine...@hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of Sean O'Toole
Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2016 4:03 PM
To: lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2016-03: Gun Rights Resolution

I believe that Mr. Demerest has already cast his vote. But in the event that he has not and does not, I vote "yes".

---

Sean O'Toole
se...@kingfieldcapital.com se...@kingfieldcapital.com
(816) 739-2737

Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

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

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I vote yes.

Tim Hagan

---

From: Alicia Mattson <agma...@gmail.com>
To: lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2016 8:40 PM
Subject: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2016-03: Gun Rights Resolution

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-...@hq.lp.org]

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. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 9:52 PM, Alicia Mattson <agma...@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 <agma...@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-bu...@hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

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

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Hmm perhaps my mistake.  Let me take a look.  I am thinking of something else.

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Ahhh you are right.  I am thinking of something entirely different, pardon me, and thank you for the correction!  I thought I read something similar in a past convention that did not pass.  

My other points remain.  We have had similar resolutions.  Including inviting people to join the Party by restating our commitment to self-ownership and non-aggression.  

-- 

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

correction to you though, you did a reverse number, it is 7.11 not 11.7.

And I would like to sharply disagree with another point.  If we are going to talk about Convention, it was represented to the delegates that Governor Weld changed his mind on his prior gun policy (and some delegates extracted an oath from him) and the issue of "terrorist watch lists" was not known as far as I am aware.   I am fine with the high burden, seems like a wise anticipatory move. 

-- 

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I also vote yes.

Love & Liberty, 

                               ((( starchild )))

At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee

                             (415) 625-FREE

 

On Aug 14, 2016, at 11:49 AM, Whitney Bilyeu wrote:

Aye.

Whitney Bilyeu

Region 7 Rep

On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 1:25 PM, Joshua Katz <planning...@gmail.com> wrote:

Yes

On Aug 12, 2016 11:41 PM, "Alicia Mattson" <agma...@gmail.com> wrote:

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I vote No on Email Ballot 2016-03     Ed Marsh  Region 2 rep

---

From: Alicia Mattson <agma...@gmail.com>
To: lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org

Sent: Friday, August 12, 2016 11:40 PM

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

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Alicia, this seems to have passed 12-3 by my count as I believe the threshold for resolutions is by a three-fourths vote.  Assuming it did and if the amendment fails I would ask the following grammatical correction be made to the text if there is no objection. We should replace the preposition "for" found in the fourth clause in the phrase "restricting access for firearms and ammunition" with "to". It should then read  "restricting access to firearms and ammunition"
This correction would be in addition to the correction already made of "deny" to "denies" in the third clause so that it would read as follows:

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 denies the legitimacy of “victimless crimes”;

WHEREAS, the government has steadily encroached upon these rights by illegitimately regulating and restricting access to 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.

Daniel Hayes
LNC At Large Member

On Aug 22, 2016, at 03:49 PM, James Lark <jw...@eservices.virginia.edu> wrote:

Dear colleagues:

    I hope all is well with you.  I am writing in my capacity as Region 5 representative to vote "aye" on the motion.

    As always, thanks for your work for liberty.

    Take care,
    Jim

    James W. Lark, III
    Advisor, The Liberty Coalition
    University of Virginia

    Region 5 Representative, Libertarian National Committee
-----

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Voting has ended for the email ballot shown below.

Voting "aye":  Bilyeu, Demarest, Goldstein, Hagan, Harlos, Hayes, Hewitt, Katz, Lark, McKnight, Starchild, Vohra

 

Voting "nay":  Bittner, Marsh, Mattson

With a final vote tally of 12-3, the motion exceeded the 3/4 vote threshold required by Bylaws Article 7.11, so it PASSES.

There has not yet been any objection to correcting the deny/denies grammatical error, but the 10 day period for objecting to that amendment ends at midnight Pacific tonight.

-Alicia

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Daniel,

I don't get to make unilateral changes to motions after they have been adopted.

The deny/denies was clearly a grammatical error, as a subject/verb disagreement, and we were able to run the "without objection" question with only a one-day delay from the main motion.  Even then it was on the same time schedule as the other amendment so that by midnight tonight we'd know the final wording.

This requested change from "for" to "to" is more of a stylistic preference rather than an error, though I agree that "to" would probably be the more commonly used preposition.  If it's important to change it, we'll have to wait another 10 days before the wording of the motion is finalized.

Daniel is one of the co-sponsors, so what do the other 4 co-sponsors say about the requested change?  If the co-sponsors want to change it, I'll put it on a 10-day hold to ask permission for the change.

In the future, let's please sort out all these editorial details before voting starts.

-Alicia

On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 4:56 AM, Daniel Hayes <daniel...@icloud.com> wrote:

Alicia, this seems to have passed 12-3 by my count as I believe the threshold for resolutions is by a three-fourths vote.  Assuming it did and if the amendment fails I would ask the following grammatical correction be made to the text if there is no objection. We should replace the preposition "for" found in the fourth clause in the phrase "restricting access for firearms and ammunition" with "to". It should then read  "restricting access to firearms and ammunition"
This correction would be in addition to the correction already made of "deny" to "denies" in the third clause so that it would read as follows:

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 denies the legitimacy of “victimless crimes”;

WHEREAS, the government has steadily encroached upon these rights by illegitimately regulating and restricting access to 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.

Daniel Hayes
LNC At Large Member

On Aug 22, 2016, at 03:49 PM, James Lark <jw...@eservices.virginia.edu> wrote:

Dear colleagues:

    I hope all is well with you.  I am writing in my capacity as Region 5 representative to vote "aye" on the motion.

    As always, thanks for your work for liberty.

    Take care,
    Jim

    James W. Lark, III
    Advisor, The Liberty Coalition
    University of Virginia

    Region 5 Representative, Libertarian National Committee
-----

On 8/12/2016 11:40 PM, Alicia Mattson 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-bu...@hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I withdraw my request Alicia.

Maybe we can make some changes for the future regarding minor grammatical fixes but at this point it is what it is.

Daniel Hayes

LNC At Large Member

Sent from my iPhone