• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Libertarian Party Platform for Self Defense

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
imported post

================================================
|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|
Old Dominion Liberty Letter Issue #19
|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|
================================================

This issue distributed on Sunday, July 19, 2009.


================================================
5. EXPLORING LIBERTY: The LP's "Self-Defense" Plank
================================================

This issue, we bring you an exploration of the Libertarian Party's platform position # 1.6 Self-Defense, which reads:

--------
1.6 Self-Defense -- The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights - life, liberty, and justly acquired property - against aggression. This right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be aided by any other individual or group. We affirm the right to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense. We oppose all laws at any level of government requiring registration of, or restricting, the ownership, manufacture, or transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition.
--------

Libertarians, like other Americans, want to be able to walk city streets safely and be secure in their homes. We also want our Constitutional rights protected, to guard against the erosion of our civil liberties. In particular, Libertarians want to see all people treated equally under the law, as our Constitution requires. America's millions of gun owners are people too.

Law-abiding, responsible citizens do not and should not need to ask anyone's permission or approval to engage in a peaceful activity. Gun ownership, by itself, harms no other person and cannot morally justify criminal penalties.

Read more from our gun rights flyer:

http://web.archive.org/web/20000815070723/http://www.lp.org/issues/gun-rights.html

Libertarians generally believe the right to keep and bear arms should be an inviolable concept. Therefore, we:

- Oppose all laws at any level of government restricting, regulating, registering or requiring the ownership, manufacture, transfer, or sale of firearms or ammunition;

- Oppose any bans or restrictions on the sale or carry of tear gas, "mace," or other self-protection devices;

- Support repeal of the National Firearms Act of 1935;

- Call for the repeal of the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968;

- Call for the abolition of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms; and

- Favor the repeal of laws banning the concealment of weapons or prohibiting pocket weapons. We also oppose the banning of inexpensive handguns ("Saturday night specials").
 

Skeptic

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Messages
585
Location
Goochland, Virginia, USA
imported post

They aren't planning on running another VA candidate in favor of "reasonable gun control" like in the US Senate race last year, one hopes.
 

ccunning

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2007
Messages
115
Location
Manassas, Virginia, USA
imported post

Thundar wrote:
We oppose all laws at any level of government requiring registration of, or restricting, the ownership, manufacture, or transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition.

Law-abiding, responsible citizens do not and should not need to ask anyone's permission or approval to engage in a peaceful activity.
The first quote would appear to include the right of ex-felons to own and carry guns. The second quote seems to add a bit of grey area to that. Where would the official party line be on that issue?
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
imported post

ccunning wrote:
Thundar wrote:
We oppose all laws at any level of government requiring registration of, or restricting, the ownership, manufacture, or transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition.

Law-abiding, responsible citizens do not and should not need to ask anyone's permission or approval to engage in a peaceful activity.
The first quote would appear to include the right of ex-felons to own and carry guns. The second quote seems to add a bit of grey area to that. Where would the official party line be on that issue?

Ex-felons can be perfectly law-abiding, and have the same rights as anyone else.

If they are committing a crime now, while carrying, they're not law-abiding. Conundrum over.

Of course, this doesn't include illegitimate malum prohibitum laws like those barring felons from owning guns, only legitimate laws that are malum in se.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

Once we have let a person back into society, we must accept the reality that that person will have practical access to all the benefits of freedom, whether we legislatively declare otherwise or not.

This includes the practical ability to arm oneself. Further, since doing so is not an act of aggression, it should not be illegal.

One could argue that a ramification of the above is that felons should not be released into society until we are comfortable trusting them with that freedom. None of this, "oh, now you're free, but you can't do this that and the other".

One could further argue that such a system would require as a prerequisite a justice system which did not imprison people for malum prohibitum offenses. Then again, we already lock up hundreds of thousands of innocents for extended durations, so I guess the above is a given in any case.
 

Tomahawk

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
5,117
Location
4 hours south of HankT, ,
imported post

KBCraig wrote:
Ex-felons

Orwell Alert: am I the only one who remembers when they used to call people who get out of prison "ex-convicts" or "ex-cons"?

Now they are just "felons", and they apparently stay that way forever.
 

longwatch

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 14, 2006
Messages
4,327
Location
Virginia, USA
imported post

Tomahawk wrote:
KBCraig wrote:
Ex-felons

Orwell Alert: am I the only one who remembers when they used to call people who get out of prison "ex-convicts" or "ex-cons"?

Now they are just "felons", and they apparently stay that way forever.
I remember that way back in the old days there weren't too many felons around because you really had to do something bad and they didn't last very long except when Blondie saved them.
[flash=425,344]http://www.youtube.com/v/dMoWg7eW1bg&hl=en&fs=1&[/flash]
As to the OP, I think there is something wrong with not being able to make restitution to restore ones rights, but I don't know if anyone can come up with an acceptable to society method of doing that better than we do now.
 
Top