Libertarian Party marks Heller victory

June 30, 2008

FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY:
We worked with Rich Heller on the DC LP ballot access drive in 2004. He stepped in and paid us, and also personally petitioned with us, after the DC LP had no one else up to the task.

Dear Libertarian,

Last week, we had a great victory in the battle to protect liberty in this country. The United States Supreme Court handed down a decision in the case Heller v. District of Columbia, which established an individual right to gun ownership in America!

The Libertarian Party immediately issued a press release hailing this decision, which adds one more plate of armor to this fundamental right.

We also had another interest in the case, as we were the only political party to file a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Heller. In that brief, written by Libertarian Party presidential candidate Bob Barr, we stated that the Second Amendment was deserving of the same strict protections we give the First Amendment.

The Libertarian Party’s amicus brief, written by Libertarian Party presidential nominee Bob Barr, can be found
here
.

We just wanted to let you know that we are working tirelessly for liberty, and that we are the only political party to stand up for your rights when they are threatened.

Thank you all for your continual support, and we look forward to your vote in November!

Sincerely,

Bill Redpath
National Chairman
Libertarian Party

9 thoughts on “Libertarian Party marks Heller victory

  1. Arthur Torrey

    Of course the result isn’t all that great – Per the Supremes, it’s a “right” but the gov’t can infringe that right in pretty much any way they want, as long as they don’t do an outright ban…

    The sort of ruling that only the NRA (which needs gun control to scare enough money out of people to pay the 6 figure salaries of Wayne LaPierre and friends…)

    Note that Barr is on the NRA board, at the same time that the GOA and other real RKBA advocates don’t see him as any great shakes…

    ART

  2. Jerry S.

    Dear Libertarian,

    Last week, we had a great victory in the battle to protect liberty in this country. The United States Supreme Court handed down a decision in the case Heller v. District of Columbia, which established an individual right to gun ownership in America!

    Redpath, God gave me that right, not the SCOTUS last week. And you were re-elected to lead the LP?

  3. Steve LaBianca

    This is just a promo to soften perception of Redpath’s gun control advocacy he has held for . . . some time, at least as far back as 2001 when he ran for Governor of Virginia with the position of pro firearm registration.

    However, make no mistake about it, until and unless Redpath TOTALLY repudiates his support for gun registration , he is still a gun grabber.

  4. Steve LaBianca

    The LP believes that the Supreme Court “established an individual right to gun ownership in America!”?

    Unless this is an oversight this press release is an abomination. This is a bad as the average Joe saying that the Constitution “gives” people rights!

    Remember, this is coming out of the Libertartian Party, the “Party of Principle” not the average Joe.

    Simply horrible!

  5. MarcMontoni

    Redpath to my knowledge does not support gun registration. Here is his “official statement” from his 2001 campaign on the issue:

    The ultimate goal of firearms policy is to maximize among the people the
    rights to life, liberty and property. To this end:

    I support private firearms ownership.

    I oppose government registration and licensing of gun owners and
    maintenance of any type of government database of gun owners.

    I oppose waiting periods for gun purchases.

    I oppose mandatory trigger locks.

    I oppose government buybacks of handguns.

    I support the repeal of the Virginia ‘restaurant ban’.

    I support the repeal of the one handgun per month restriction.

    I oppose the ‘recreational centers ban’.

    I oppose the so-called ‘Assault Weapons Ban’.

    I support recognizing all other states’ concealed carry permits.

    I am in favor of legal open and concealed carry laws, with a state issued
    permit.

    I do, however, support instant background checks for individuals purchasing
    guns. Private sales would be legal but would have to be routed through a
    dealer who would perform the background check on the buyer. No compilation
    of gun owners by the government would be allowed.

    I also think people convicted of a violent felony or violent misdemeanor
    (included due to plea bargaining that frequently reduces charges from
    felonies), with possible restoration of gun rights five years after the
    last relevant conviction. People who have been committed to a mental
    institution as a result of a violent act that would have led to such a
    conviction, but for the person being found not guilty by reason of
    insanity, should also not be allowed to possess guns, with restoration of
    gun rights with certification from a licensed psychiatrist or psychologist
    that the person has not suffered from the disability for five years.

    -Bill Redpath

  6. MarcMontoni

    I will add, however, that by routing all sales through dealers who are required to perform a background check, complete with a “your papers, please?” request, it does not matter how you write the law — bureaucrats are the same everywhere, and they live to assemble lists that can be used later.

  7. C. Porter

    Despite DC vs Heller, there would have to be some libertarians who oppose this decision because to them, it only replaces one gun law with another, right? It is not to say that they are less pro-gun than conservatives, just the opposite. And there ARE libertarians who probably believe that not all activist judges are left-leaning. Thank you.

  8. C. Porter

    I forgot to mention another thing: a minarchist judge would still rule in favor of Heller if not to overturn the DC hand gun ban, though most of the time I guess they would. The most minarchist of judges would only instruct the legislative body that passed the law to repeal it on its own instead of a court doing it for them, correct?

Leave a Reply