Gary Johnson and the Second Amendment

[TopDog]

I don't think most people even know the stances of Obama, Johnson, or Romney. I was in a meeting today and a few of the people didn't even know who Gary Johnson was. I just tell people to go to iSideWith.com and figure which candidate has similar stances.
We don't need to educate people about 1 vote for Johnson = 1 vote for Johnson or whatever. We need people to realize that the power is with the people. All they have to do is be heard and support someone who will lead them. I don't think a choice for the lesser of two evils is a choice at all.

All well and good and just how will that apply to THIS election? This election is between two candidates, no third party candidates have a chance to win. If you want to see some change then start making it happen from the bottom up. Grow support for a third party, make it real, not some wish in the wind. There is no short cut to fixing something so massively screwed up as our government. You will not make a change by voting Obama for another four years either by voting for him directly or via a third party candidate. Not this time around.

 

[mrjarrell]

 

[88GT]

Back on topic, just exactly what about Romney's firearms record is so scary? The fact that he administration passed a regulation providing free replacement of the firearms licenses for those that were lost or stolen? (Prior to this replacement required completion of the entire application process, including the application fee in it's entirety).

Or maybe it was the extension of the firearm license from 4-years to 6 years that has you so riled up.

No, not any of those? Well how about one of the following?

Chapter 150 of the Acts of 2004: An Act Further Regulating Certain Weapons

This is a perfect example of don’t believe in titles. The bill was the greatest victory for gun owners since the passage of the gun control laws in 1998 (Chapter 180 of the Acts of 1998). It was a reform bill totally supported by GOAL. Press and media stories around the country got it completely wrong when claimed the bill was an extension of the “assault weapon” ban that had sunset at the federal level. They could not have been more wrong. Unfortunately for the Governor, someone had also wrongly briefed him about the bill. As a result the Lt. Governor and the Governor made statements at the bill signing ceremony that angered GOAL members. The following is what the bill actually did:

1. Established the Firearm License Review Board (FLRB). The 1998 law created new criteria for disqualifying citizens for firearms licenses that included any misdemeanor punishable by more than two years even if no jail time was ever served.

For instance, a first conviction of operating a motor vehicle under the influence would result in the loss of your ability to own a handgun for life and long guns for a minimum of five years. This Board is now able to review cases under limited circumstances to restore licenses to individuals who meet certain criteria.

2. Mandated that a minimum of $50,000 of the licensing fees be used for the operation of the FLRB so that the Board would not cease operating under budget cuts.

3. Extended the term of the state’s firearm licenses from 4 years to 6 years.

4. Permanently attached the federal language concerning assault weapon exemptions in 18 USC 922 Appendix A to the Massachusetts assault weapons laws. This is the part that the media misrepresented.

In 1998 the Massachusetts legislature passed its own assault weapons ban (MGL Chapter 140, Section 131M). This ban did not rely on the federal language and contained no sunset clause. Knowing that we did not have the votes in 2004 to get rid of the state law, we did not want to loose all of the federal exemptions that were not in the state law so this new bill was amended to include them.

5. Re-instated a 90 day grace period for citizens who were trying to renew their firearm license. Over the past years, the government agencies in charge had fallen months behind in renewing licenses. At one point it was taking upwards of a year to renew a license. Under Massachusetts law, a citizen cannot have a firearm or ammunition in their home with an expired license.

6. Mandated that law enforcement must issue a receipt for firearms that are confiscated due to an expired license. Prior to this law, no receipts were given for property confiscated which led to accusations of stolen or lost firearms after they were confiscated by police.

7. Gave free license renewal for law enforcement officers who applied through their employing agency.

8. Changed the size and style of a firearm license to that of a driver’s license so that it would fit in a normal wallet. The original license was 3” x 4”.

9. Created stiffer penalties for armed home invaders.

Chapter 137 of the Acts of 2005: An Act Relative to a Loaded Shotgun or Rifle

Prior to this bill passing there were two different laws on the books in Massachusetts that defined what a loaded muzzle loader was. This bill corrected the language in the laws so that now both provide that if the priming device is removed, the muzzle loader is considered unloaded. Although this bill sounds like a “no brainer” it took nearly 5 years to pass.

Chapter 137 of the Acts of 2006: An Act Removing Automatic Qualifications for Certain Licenses

The Hunter Education bill, S.469, was signed into law by Governor Mitt Romney on July 6, 2006.

The new law will require that all first time hunters complete a hunter education course prior to being issued a hunting or sporting license. This was already the law prior to very confusing language that was passed in SECTION 7 of Chapter 180 of the Acts of 1998. GOAL successfully had an amendment included to amend the bill to “grandfather” anyone who has been issued a license prior to January 1, 2007.

Chapter 177 of the Acts of 2006: An Act Further Regulating the Use of Target Shooting Weapons

As part of the 1998 law the Massachusetts legislature passed severe restrictions on the sale of handguns in Massachusetts by creating an absurd list of testing requirements that all handguns must be subjected to before being eligible for sale in the state. At the same time, the Massachusetts Attorney General’s office fraudulently used the consumer protection laws of the state to do the same thing. Because of these actions, high grade target pistols could not be sold in Massachusetts. This bill addressed that issue.

This is what the new law does:

Provides that any firearm lawfully owned or possessed under a license issued under this chapter on or before October 21, 1998 would be exempt from the testing criteria. This language was passed into law in Section 79 of the Acts of 1998, but was never actually placed into the statutes. This law now established this exemption in Chapter 140.

Instructs the Executive Office of Public Safety, with the advice of the Gun Control Advisory Board, to create a list of formal target shooting firearms that shall be exempt from the testing criteria. This process will be similar to how the approved roster works.

EOPS passed 501 CMR 9.00 a regulation to provide free replacement licenses.

During his administration, the Executive Office of Public Safety approved a new regulation providing free replacement firearm licenses to those who had them stolen or lost. (A resident license fee in Massachusetts at that time was $100 every 6 years.) Prior to this regulation being created a citizen would have to repeat the entire application process and pay the entire fee to acquire a replacement license.

Chapter 48 of the Acts of 2006: An Act Reducing Gang Violence (Section 6 – committing or concealing a crime)

Although this particular legislation was not a GOAL bill, we list it here because there were several anti-Second Amendment sections in the original draft. The legislative sponsors of the bill, GOAL, and the Romney administration all worked together to remove any bad sections. We were successful in doing so and actually came up with some new language that more effectively went after the criminal element.

Does it matter that the MA group Gun Owner's Action League has gone on record saying that there wasn't a single anti-2A bill passed on Romney's watch?

Legislation: During the Romney Administration, no anti-Second Amendment or anti-sportsmen legislation made its way to the Governor’s desk.

Governor Romney did sign five pro-Second Amendment/pro-sportsmen bills into law. His administration also worked with Gun Owners’ Action League and the Democratic leadership of the Massachusetts House and Senate to remove any anti-Second Amendment language from the Gang Violence bill passed in 2006. A summary of this legislation follows.

I mean, if all we have to go on is his record....

FWIW, the only real risk to our RKBA in the next four years comes from Obama. I seriously doubt Congress will pass the legislation, but Obama will have zero compunction about circumventing the legislative process and legislating by regulatory fiat.

 

[rambone]

Why Fear Romney

Supported the Clinton Federal Assault Weapons Ban (2007)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgZ6AuHnmk0

Supports tough Massachusetts Gun Control Laws (2002)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kk1bJOpYUqE

Supported Federal Ballistics Fingerprinting (2002)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4YOl8P22dI

Supported the Brady Bill (2007)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxtB_hk-HS0

Opposes Automatic Weapons, wants "enormous efforts" to enforce current unconstitutional laws (2012)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLaklwos90w

 

[Raskolnikov]

Gary Johnson is a convenient protest vote. A message to the RNC that some still exist in this country that do not suckle at the teat of the Golden Elephant.

Ron Paul was the no compromise candidate. He is out of the running for 2012.

We are left with nothing but compromise and the lesser of the available evil.

I don't view Johnson as a protest vote; he's also a no-compromise candidate. I don't revere him as highly as Ron Paul, but he's a very close second.

^^^^^^
+1

This has been beat to death. Bottom line is a vote for anyone other than Romney is a vote for Obama. If you think any other vote is a protest vote you are having about as much effect towards a protest as a fart in the wind. If you want to make a difference then understand. You have to fix this corrupt government from the bottom up, not the top down.

Like so many others I think Romney flat out sucks. But he is much better than another socialist rule by Obama.

I'm not an armchair activist. I actually volunteer for, write about, and promote libertarian/constitutionalist causes.

Don't confuse fascism and socialism. Obama would probably like everyone to think that he's a socialist. His boyhood heroes were Marxist-Leninists. However, since he's grown up, he's found fascism to be more lucrative.

I don't think most people even know the stances of Obama, Johnson, or Romney. I was in a meeting today and a few of the people didn't even know who Gary Johnson was. I just tell people to go to iSideWith.com and figure which candidate has similar stances.
We don't need to educate people about 1 vote for Johnson = 1 vote for Johnson or whatever. We need people to realize that the power is with the people. All they have to do is be heard and support someone who will lead them. I don't think a choice for the lesser of two evils is a choice at all.

I agree. The vast majority of people are uninformed zombies. According to iSideWith.com, I (proudly) identify with Johnson 97% of the time (whereas I only side with Romney 67% of the time, and Obama only 10% of the time).

Other people are free to vote for whom they choose. If your choice is Romney: fine. If your choice is Obama: I guess you have the right to destroy yourself. I personally cannot support what I find to be evil. I find Gary Johnson to be a very attractive candidate, thus, he's my choice. I'm not marking Barack Obama on my ballot--therefore, I'm not voting for him.

 

[Shoots4Fun]

I am of the belief, that since the reality is a two party system, you can only make great changes by infiltrating one of the parties.

Waiting for an election to voice your protest, seems a bit late under our current system.

This is the hand we were dealt, play it accordingly.

 

[Steelman]

I don't view Johnson as a protest vote; he's also a no-compromise candidate. I don't revere him as highly as Ron Paul, but he's a very close second.

Gary Johnson is campaigning for 5% of the popular vote so the Libertarian Party can get matching Federal funds. Not for the Office of President.

He is a protest vote, indeed.

 

[buckstopshere]

I don't like Romney

I don't like Obama

I like Gary Johnson

I vote yes to what I like, not what I fear the least.

 

[Raskolnikov]

Gary Johnson is campaigning for 5% of the popular vote so the Libertarian Party can get matching Federal funds. Not for the Office of President.

He is a protest vote, indeed.

Gary Johnson is also a realist. He knows that he isn't going to win. Getting matching Federal funds is an excellent goal. It will improve our chances to win in the future. It has nothing to do with protesting. If someone really wants to protest with his vote, he needn't vote at all.

I don't like Romney

I don't like Obama

I like Gary Johnson

I vote yes to what I like, not what I fear the least.

Well said.

 

[Steelman]

Gary Johnson is also a realist. He knows that he isn't going to win. Getting matching Federal funds is an excellent goal. It will improve our chances to win in the future. It has nothing to do with protesting. If someone really wants to protest with his vote, he needn't vote at all.

*ahem* *taps microphone twice*


Why is a Libertarian candidate campaigning for Federal dollars?

If the candidate himself knows he won't win, how is a vote for him not a protest of the two-party system?




Is the LP printing talking points on cereal boxes?

 

[buckstopshere]

*ahem* *taps microphone twice*


Why is a Libertarian candidate campaigning for Federal dollars?

If the candidate himself knows he won't win, how is a vote for him not a protest of the two-party system?




Is the LP printing talking points on cereal boxes?

For some it very well may be. For others it's just who they want in the Oval Office.

 

[Raskolnikov]

*ahem* *taps microphone twice*


Why is a Libertarian candidate campaigning for Federal dollars?

If the candidate himself knows he won't win, how is a vote for him not a protest of the two-party system?




Is the LP printing talking points on cereal boxes?

Unfortunately, I have to say this: toucé. I had this same discussion with my father (a Democrat) the other night. The only answer I have is that already hands out a bunch of money to the GOP and to the Democrats for their campaigns. Money is the only way to win an election right now. Johnson spoke about campaign finance during the Third Party Debate, which was hosted by RT. Fundamentally, I don't think any Federal fund should be given out for elections. However, at the present, they are. Gary Johnson is a candidate who would likely put an end to this type of spending, but the only way to achieve this is to elect someone with his views. To get elected, this candidate needs funding. This is atrocious logic, but it's the only conclusion I have.

 

[huntall50]

Good discussion guys, look at this election process with real realism, ITS BROKEN!
The fix as we all know is not the lesser of evils but real candidates that reflect our views. There needs to be new parties introduced to the mix and if my no compromise vote for Johnson fails to elect him then the lesser of evils wins. RNC needs to be stopped, they gave the last election away and may possibly give this one away. Change begins at the bottom, but unfortunately many who profess to have strong stances cave to the status quo. A vote for either representatives of the two party system is a vote for status quo. Make your vote really count, begin to let your voice be truly heard and oppose the two party system.

 

[Raskolnikov]

Good discussion guys, look at this election process with real realism, ITS BROKEN!
The fix as we all know is not the lesser of evils but real candidates that reflect our views. There needs to be new parties introduced to the mix and if my no compromise vote for Johnson fails to elect him then the lesser of evils wins. RNC needs to be stopped, they gave the last election away and may possibly give this one away. Change begins at the bottom, but unfortunately many who profess to have strong stances cave to the status quo. A vote for either representatives of the two party system is a vote for status quo. Make your vote really count, begin to let your voice be truly heard and oppose the two party system.

Change really does start from the bottom up. Unfortunately, most of us here on INGO (myself included) have spent far too much time bickering about the presidential election. However, if we spend more time discussing smaller elections (like the Senate bid), we might get somewhere.

 

[88GT]

Good discussion guys, look at this election process with real realism, ITS BROKEN!
The fix as we all know is not the lesser of evils but real candidates that reflect our views. There needs to be new parties introduced to the mix and if my no compromise vote for Johnson fails to elect him then the lesser of evils wins. RNC needs to be stopped, they gave the last election away and may possibly give this one away. Change begins at the bottom, but unfortunately many who profess to have strong stances cave to the status quo. A vote for either representatives of the two party system is a vote for status quo. Make your vote really count, begin to let your voice be truly heard and oppose the two party system.

No, the fix is a disassociation of political parties from publicly funded campaigns and primary election for just a few of the parties. Either all parties get a share of the public funds and have their candidates on the primary ballot or they all have to raise their own funds and slate and and pick their nominee by their members only.

 

[bigcraig]

No, the fix is a disassociation of political parties from publicly funded campaigns and primary election for just a few of the parties. Either all parties get a share of the public funds and have their candidates on the primary ballot or they all have to raise their own funds and slate and and pick their nominee by their members only.

I agree with this completely, and strongly agree that NO parties receive ANY money other than their members.

 

[patience0830]

So, voting for Johnson now gives control of congress to Obama now as well?

Might not be congress that does the job for him. A liberal SCOTUS could do the job with the right suits brought to it.

 

[LP1]

Place the blame squarely where it belongs. Blame those that brought us McCain and Romney to battle Obama.

And blame the folks that put Mourdock in place of Lugar.